In this issue of Psychiatric Services, two articles provide data to justify these concerns. Morrissey and his colleagues and Boothroyd and his coauthors found that enrollees in plans in which services were covered under capitation used significantly fewer services than enrollees in no-risk programs. In the study by Morrissey and associates, patients in the at-risk program had significantly poorer outcomes. Although case management, financed separately, was provided more abundantly in the at-risk program, outcomes measured at six months clearly showed that this funding arrangement did not substitute for access to treatment. Patients in the study by Boothroyd and his colleagues who were enrolled in the at-risk program were also significantly less satisfied with services.