Fee-for-service

Last updated

Fee-for-service (FFS) is a payment model where services are unbundled and paid for separately.

Contents

In health care, it gives an incentive for physicians to provide more treatments because payment is dependent on the quantity of care, rather than quality of care. However evidence of the effectiveness of FFS in improving health care quality is mixed, without conclusive proof that these programs either succeed or fail. [1] Similarly, when patients are shielded from paying (cost-sharing) by health insurance coverage, they are incentivized to welcome any medical service that might do some good. Fee-for-services raises costs, and discourages the efficiencies of integrated care. A variety of reform efforts have been attempted, recommended, or initiated to reduce its influence (such as moving towards bundled payments and capitation). In capitation, physicians are not incentivized to perform procedures, including necessary ones, because they are not paid anything extra for performing them.

FFS is the dominant physician payment method in the United States. [2] In the Japanese health care system, FFS is mixed with a nationwide price setting mechanism (all-payer rate setting) to control costs. [3]

Health care

In the health insurance and the health care industries, FFS occurs if doctors and other health care providers receive a fee for each service such as an office visit, test, procedure, or other health care service. [4] Payments are issued only after the services are provided. FFS is potentially inflationary by raising health care costs. [5]

FFS creates a potential financial conflict of interest with patients, as it incentivizes overutilization, [6] —treatments with an inappropriately excessive volume or cost. [7]

FFS does not incentivize physicians to withhold services. [8] If bills are paid under FFS by a third party, patients (along with doctors) have no incentive to consider the cost of treatment. [9] Patients can welcome services under third-party payers because "when people are insulated from the cost of a desirable product or service, they use more." [10]

Evidence suggests primary care physicians paid under a FFS model tend to treat patients with more procedures than those paid under capitation or a salary. [11] FFS incentivizes primary care physicians to invest in radiology clinics and perform physician self-referral to generate income. [12]

While most practices have succumbed to the need to see more patients and increase FFS procedures to maintain revenue, more physicians are looking to alternate practice models as a better solution. In addition to value-based reimbursement models, such as pay-for-performance programs and accountable care organizations, there is a resurgence of interest in concierge and direct-pay practice models. [13] When patients have greater access to their physicians and physicians have more time to spend with patients, utilization of services such as imaging and testing declines.

FFS is a barrier to coordinated care, or integrated care, exemplified by the Mayo Clinic, because it rewards individual clinicians for performing separate treatments. [14] [15] FFS also does not pay providers to pay attention to the most costly patients, [16] which could benefit from interventions such as phone calls that can make some hospital stays and 911 calls unnecessary. [16] [17] In the US, FFS is the main payment method. [2] Executives regret the changes to managed care, believing that FFS turned "industrious, productivity-oriented physicians into complacent, salaried employees." [2] [8] General practitioners have less autonomy after switching from a FFS model to integrated care. [18] Patients, when moved off of a FFS model, may have their choices of physicians restricted, as was done in the Netherlands' attempt to move to co-ordinated care. [18]

When physicians cannot bill for a service, it serves as a disincentive to perform that service if other billable options exist. Electronic referral, when a specialist evaluates medical data (such as laboratory tests or photos) to diagnose a patient instead of seeing the patient in person, would often improve health care quality and lower costs. However, "in the private fee-for-service context, the loss of specialist income is a powerful barrier to e-referral, a barrier that might be overcome if health plans compensated specialists for the time spent handling e-referrals." [19]

In Canada, the proportion of services billed under FFS from 1990 to 2010 shifted substantially. [20] Less care was paid out for patients under 55 while for those over 65, payment for diagnostic services was sharply increased. [20]

Reform

Moving away from FFS towards pay for performance introduces quality and efficiency incentives instead of rewarding quantity alone. [15] In addition to the Mayo Clinic, other health care systems serve as co-ordinated/integrated care alternatives to the FFS model like South Central Pennsylvania's Geisinger Health System whose physicians, residents and fellows are paid a salary with the potential for bonuses depending upon patient performance, Utah's Intermountain Healthcare, the Cleveland Clinic, and Kaiser Permanente. [12] Coordinated care can produce cost savings of about 50% when compared to FFS programs, but long term savings for payers may not exceed 40%. [18]

A goal of accountable care organizations (ACOs), part of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), is to move from FFS to integrated care. [21] ACOs, however, fit largely into a FFS framework and do not abandon the model entirely. [22] That approach suggests policymakers are attempting to avoid provoking public outcry, as happened with managed care in the 1990s by giving providers incentives to give less care. [22] The PPACA aims to first move Medicare away from FFS and then other payers. [23] A Swiss study showed physicians wanted significant pay raises to leave FFS for an integrated care model, and patients wanted lower premiums before they would choose one, results that hint at difficulties for PPACA aims. [18]

In China, where FFS resulted in costly, inefficient, and poor quality health care with a degeneration in medical ethics, reforms have been initiated to realign health care provider incentives. [5] Experimentation with new payment models is ongoing and recommendations include a strengthening of medical ethics, alterations to provider's profit motives, and, if hospitals retain their profit motive, segregating physicians from the goal of profit. [5]

In the US, a 1990s move from FFS to pure capitation provoked a backlash from patients and health care providers. [15] Pure capitation pays only a set fee per patient, regardless of sickness, giving physicians an incentive to avoid the most costly patients. [24] To avoid the pitfalls of FFS and pure capitation, models of episode-of-care payment and comprehensive care payment have been proposed. [24] In 2009, Massachusetts, with the highest health care costs in the country, had a group of ten health care experts who worked under legislative mandate to come up with a plan to tackle costs (the Massachusetts Payment Reform Commission); they unanimously concluded the FFS model must be done away with. [16] Their plan included a move away from FFS to a global payment system that had similarities to a capitated system. [16]

In 2014, Maryland set up an independent commission which created a fixed revenue system, or global budget for the state's hospitals. Both public and private insurers pay into a common fund. Each hospital has a stable yearly income which it can use to plan. Budgets were originally based on the number of patients and procedures reported in 2013, with annual adjustments for inflation and population change. Going forward, it is to a hospital's benefit to avoid unnecessary procedures and to adopt preventive programs that reduce chronic illness and re-admissions. In its first five years, Maryland's new payment system saved an estimated $1.4 billion in Medicare costs compared to other states. In addition, rates of preventable hospital-acquired illness fell. [25]

An even more striking difference was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic as fee-for-service hospitals provided less of the elective services that they depended on for funding. An assessment of the Financial Effects of COVID-19: Hospital Outlook for the Remainder of 2021 predicted that hospital income could remain as much as 80 percent lower than pre-pandemic levels. In contrast, outpatient hospital revenue fell only 14.6 percent and inpatient revenue by 1.6 percent in Maryland's hospitals, looking at the period from January–July in 2019 and 2020. [25] [26]

Medicare in the US is a FFS program. [27] The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), in its mid-2011 report to Congress, called for a mechanism so that Medicare beneficiaries would have disincentives to undergo unnecessary care. [28]

Patents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office operates on a FFS model. [29]

Real estate

In real estate, the fee-for-service model of paying a broker provides an alternative to paying commission. In the fee-for service pricing model, a broker may charge for showing trips or other services. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medicare (United States)</span> US government health insurance program

Medicare is a federal health insurance program in the United States for people age 65 or older and younger people with disabilities, including those with end stage renal disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. It was begun in 1965 under the Social Security Administration and is now administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Resource-based relative value scale (RBRVS) is a schema used to determine how much money medical providers should be paid. It is partially used by Medicare in the United States and by nearly all health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

The term managed care or managed healthcare is used in the United States to describe a group of activities intended to reduce the cost of providing health care and providing American health insurance while improving the quality of that care. It has become the predominant system of delivering and receiving American health care since its implementation in the early 1980s, and has been largely unaffected by the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

...intended to reduce unnecessary health care costs through a variety of mechanisms, including: economic incentives for physicians and patients to select less costly forms of care; programs for reviewing the medical necessity of specific services; increased beneficiary cost sharing; controls on inpatient admissions and lengths of stay; the establishment of cost-sharing incentives for outpatient surgery; selective contracting with health care providers; and the intensive management of high-cost health care cases. The programs may be provided in a variety of settings, such as Health Maintenance Organizations and Preferred Provider Organizations.

Dual-eligible beneficiaries refers to those qualifying for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits. In the United States, approximately 9.2 million people are eligible for "dual" status. Dual-eligibles make up 14% of Medicaid enrollment, yet they are responsible for approximately 36% of Medicaid expenditures. Similarly, duals total 20% of Medicare enrollment, and spend 31% of Medicare dollars. Dual-eligibles are often in poorer health and require more care compared with other Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

In the healthcare industry, pay for performance (P4P), also known as "value-based purchasing", is a payment model that offers financial incentives to physicians, hospitals, medical groups, and other healthcare providers for meeting certain performance measures. Clinical outcomes, such as longer survival, are difficult to measure, so pay for performance systems usually evaluate process quality and efficiency, such as measuring blood pressure, lowering blood pressure, or counseling patients to stop smoking. This model also penalizes health care providers for poor outcomes, medical errors, or increased costs. Integrated delivery systems where insurers and providers share in the cost are intended to help align incentives for value-based care.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medicare for All Act</span> Proposed U.S. healthcare reform legislation

The Medicare for All Act, also known as the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act or United States National Health Care Act, is a bill first introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) in 2003, with 38 co-sponsors. In 2019, the original 16-year-old proposal was renumbered, and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) introduced a broadly similar, but more detailed, bill, HR 1384, in the 116th Congress. As of November 3, 2019, it had 116 co-sponsors still in the House at the time, or 49.8% of House Democrats.

Healthcare reform in the United States has a long history. Reforms have often been proposed but have rarely been accomplished. In 2010, landmark reform was passed through two federal statutes: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), signed March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which amended the PPACA and became law on March 30, 2010.

In economics, supplier induced demand (SID) may occur when asymmetry of information exists between supplier and consumer. The supplier can use superior information to encourage an individual to demand a greater quantity of the good or service they supply than the Pareto efficient level, should asymmetric information not exist. The result of this is a welfare loss.


Capitation is a payment arrangement for health care service providers. It pays a set amount for each enrolled person assigned to them, per period of time, whether or not that person seeks care. The amount of remuneration is based on the average expected health care utilization of that patient, with payment for patients generally varying by age and health status.

Cost-shifting is an economic situation where one individual, group, or government underpays for a service, resulting in another individual, group, or government overpaying for a service. It can occur when one group pays a smaller share of costs than before, resulting in another group paying a larger share of costs than before. Some commentators on health policy in the United States believe the former currently happens in Medicare and Medicaid as they underpay for services resulting in private insurers overpaying. Although the term cost shift is used in the field of healthcare these days and there are many studies about it, other fields have more or less used it. For example, its origins go back to the environmental economy where cost-shifting referred to the practice where corporations pass the harmful consequences and negative externalities of economic production to third parties and communities whether those that are part of the production circuit or are in some way beneficiaries or those that are outside this circle, K.W. Kapp, is one who coined the concept. This concept is also used in the American legal system, especially since the cost of electronic discovery has increased dramatically due to a large amount of raw information and the urgent need to extract relevant data, its processing, and analysis. In the past, each of the plaintiffs and defendants had to bear the cost, but later many of those who prepared the summons demanded the transfer of the cost because they thought they would have to pay for something they did not do. In this regard, some courts have agreed to shift part of the costs to the complainant.

Usual, customary, and reasonable (UCR) is an American method of generating health care prices, described as "more or less whatever doctors decided to charge". According to Steven Schroeder, Wilbur Cohen inserted UCR into the Social Security Act of 1965 "in an unsuccessful attempt to placate the American Medical Association". Health insurers determine what they deem to be "usual, customary and reasonable" and pay only a percentage of that.

Bundled payment is the reimbursement of health care providers "on the basis of expected costs for clinically-defined episodes of care." It has been described as "a middle ground" between fee-for-service reimbursement and capitation, given that risk is shared between payer and provider. Bundled payments have been proposed in the health care reform debate in the United States as a strategy for reducing health care costs, especially during the Obama administration (2009–2016). Commercial payers have shown interest in bundled payments in order to reduce costs. In 2012, it was estimated that approximately one-third of the United States healthcare reimbursement used bundled methodology.

An accountable care organization (ACO) is a healthcare organization that ties provider reimbursements to quality metrics and reductions in the cost of care. ACOs in the United States are formed from a group of coordinated health-care practitioners. They use alternative payment models, normally, capitation. The organization is accountable to patients and third-party payers for the quality, appropriateness and efficiency of the health care provided. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an ACO is "an organization of health care practitioners that agrees to be accountable for the quality, cost, and overall care of Medicare beneficiaries who are enrolled in the traditional fee-for-service program who are assigned to it".

Unnecessary health care is health care provided with a higher volume or cost than is appropriate. In the United States, where health care costs are the highest as a percentage of GDP, overuse was the predominant factor in its expense, accounting for about a third of its health care spending in 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts</span> Health insurance company

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA) is a state licensed nonprofit private health insurance company under the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association with headquarters in Boston. The Boston location located on 133 Federal Street is currently under study as a pending Boston Landmark by the Boston Landmarks Commission.

All-payer rate setting is a price setting mechanism in which all third parties pay the same price for services at a given hospital. It can be used to increase the market power of payers versus providers, such as hospital systems, in order to control costs. All-payer characteristics are found in most developed economies with multi-payer healthcare systems, including France, Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands. The U.S. state of Maryland also uses such a model.

Since the late 1970s, the Maryland hospital payment system has employed an all-payer system for hospital services in which all payers pay the same amount for a given service at a particular hospital. An independent commission establishes the rate structure for each hospital. The system eliminated hospital cost shifting across payers and more equitably spread the costs of uncompensated care and medical education and limited cost growth, but per capita Medicare hospital costs are among the country's highest.

A hospital readmission is an episode when a patient who had been discharged from a hospital is admitted again within a specified time interval. Readmission rates have increasingly been used as an outcome measure in health services research and as a quality benchmark for health systems. Generally, higher readmission rate indicates ineffectiveness of treatment during past hospitalizations. Hospital readmission rates were formally included in reimbursement decisions for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, which penalizes health systems with higher than expected readmission rates through the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program. Since the inception of this penalty, there have been other programs that have been introduced, with the aim to decrease hospital readmission. The Community Based Care Transition Program, Independence At Home Demonstration Program, and Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative are all examples of these programs. While many time frames have been used historically, the most common time frame is within 30 days of discharge, and this is what CMS uses.

The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an episode-based payment system developed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. The multipayer model is designed for discrete instances of care, especially those involving chemotherapy, which triggers the six-month episode. The program combines fee-for-service (FFS) payments for established services, monthly payments for additional care under a structured guideline, and performance-based payments weighed against quality metrics and benchmarks.

How healthcare payment is managed is one of key policies that countries have to drive healthcare system. Payment for healthcare is managed in various ways. The main categories of payment systems are salary, capitation, bundled payment, global budget and fee-for-service. Most countries have mixed systems of physician payment.

References

  1. ↑ Ryan, Andrew M.; Werner, Rachel M. (October 9, 2013). "Doubts About Pay-for-Performance in Health Care". Harvard Business Review– via hbr.org.
  2. 1 2 3 Robert A. Berenson & Eugene C. Rich (June 2010). "US approaches to physician payment: the deconstruction of primary care". Journal of General Internal Medicine . 25 (6): 613–618. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1295-z. PMC   2869428 . PMID   20467910.
  3. ↑ "Sick around the world". Frontline . April 15, 2008. 17 minutes in. PBS.
  4. ↑ FEHB Glossary. Retrieved May 31, 2006.
  5. 1 2 3 Winnie Chi-Man Yip, William Hsiao, Qingyue Meng, Wen Chen & Xiaoming Sun (March 2010). "Realignment of incentives for health-care providers in China". The Lancet . 375 (9720): 1120–1130. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60063-3. PMID   20346818. S2CID   19766054.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ↑ Ronald M. Green (July–August 1990). "Medical joint-venturing: An ethical perspective". Hastings Center Report . 20 (4): 22–6. doi:10.2307/3562762. JSTOR   3562762. PMID   2211082.
  7. ↑ Ezekiel J. Emanuel & Victor R. Fuchs (June 2008). "The perfect storm of overutilization" (PDF). JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association . 299 (23): 2789–2791. doi:10.1001/jama.299.23.2789. PMID   18560006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-09-02.
  8. 1 2 Chernew ME (2010). "Reforming payment for health care services: comment on "physicians' opinions about reforming reimbursement"". Arch Intern Med . 170 (19): 1742–4. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.377. PMID   20975021.
  9. ↑ Victor R. Fuchs (December 2009). "Eliminating 'waste' in health care". JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association . 302 (22): 2481–2482. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1821. PMID   19996406.
  10. ↑ Merrill Matthews; Mark Litow (July 11, 2011). "Why Medicare Patients See the Doctor Too Much". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved July 22, 2011.
  11. ↑ Gosden T, Forland F, Kristiansen IS, et al. (2000). "Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 (3): CD002215. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002215. PMC   9879313 . PMID   10908531.
  12. 1 2 Jeffery Kluger (October 26, 2009). "A Healthier Way to Pay Doctors". TIME. 174 (16): 36–40. PMID   19873802. Archived from the original on October 19, 2009.
  13. ↑ "Healthcare Reform Influencing Physicians' Career Choices" Archived 2012-09-21 at the Wayback Machine Aubrey Westgate, Physicians Practice, September 2012.
  14. ↑ Lawrence, David (2005). Building a Better Delivery System: A New Engineering/Health Care Partnership – Bridging the Quality Chasm (PDF). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. p. 99. ISBN   978-0-309-65406-7.
  15. 1 2 3 Karen Davis (March 2007). "Paying for care episodes and care coordination". The New England Journal of Medicine . 356 (11): 1166–1168. doi:10.1056/NEJMe078007. PMID   17360996.
  16. 1 2 3 4 Richard Knox (August 5, 2009). "To Lower Costs, Mass. May Restructure Doctor Pay". Morning Edition . NPR . Retrieved June 26, 2011.
  17. ↑ Atul Gawande (January 24, 2011). "The Hot Spotters: Can we lower medical costs by giving the neediest patients better care?". The New Yorker . Retrieved June 26, 2011.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Peter Zweifel (March 2011). "Swiss experiment shows physicians, consumers want significant compensation to embrace coordinated care". Health Affairs . 30 (3): 510–518. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0954. PMID   21383370.
  19. ↑ Thomas Bodenheimer (March 2008). "Coordinating care – a perilous journey through the health care system". The New England Journal of Medicine . 358 (10): 1064–1071. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.527.4412 . doi:10.1056/NEJMhpr0706165. PMID   18322289.
  20. 1 2 Rachel Mendleson (October 25, 2010). "The Worst-Run Industry in Canada: Health Care". Canadian Business . 83 (17). Archived from the original on November 8, 2012. Retrieved June 27, 2011.
  21. ↑ Phil Galewitz; Jordan Rau; Bara Vaida (March 31, 2011). "'Accountable care' expected to save millions for Medicare". Kaiser Health News . McClatchy. Retrieved June 26, 2011.
  22. 1 2 John K. Iglehart (April 2011). "The ACO regulations – some answers, more questions". The New England Journal of Medicine . 364 (17): e35. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1103603. PMID   21488758.
  23. ↑ Kenneth E. Thorpe & Lydia L. Ogden (June 2010). "Analysis & commentary. The foundation that health reform lays for improved payment, care coordination, and prevention". Health Affairs . 29 (6): 1183–1187. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0415. PMID   20530352.
  24. 1 2 Harold D. Miller (September–October 2009). "From volume to value: better ways to pay for health care". Health Affairs . 28 (5): 1418–1428. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.1418. PMID   19738259.
  25. 1 2 Colmers, John; Glied, Sherry (1 November 2021). "Let's change how we pay for hospitals". Knowable Magazine. doi: 10.1146/knowable-102921-1 . S2CID   240472969 . Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  26. ↑ "Financial Effects of COVID-19: Hospital Outlook for the Remainder of 2021". American Hospital Association. September 2021. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  27. ↑ Peter B. Bach (January 2007). "Costs of cancer care: a view from the centers for Medicare and Medicaid services". Journal of Clinical Oncology . 25 (2): 187–190. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.08.6116. PMID   17210938.
  28. ↑ "Medicare Options In Biden Budget Talks Get Boost". NPR . The Associated Press. June 15, 2011. Retrieved June 26, 2011.[ permanent dead link ]
  29. ↑ "Report on Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2009". United States Senate Committee on Appropriations. June 23, 2008. Archived from the original on May 7, 2009. Retrieved July 4, 2011. As a fee for service agency the USPTO operates in a business like model.
  30. ↑ ABout.com Real Estate Business definitions http://realestate.about.com/od/df/g/deffeeforsvc.htm Archived 2016-04-20 at the Wayback Machine
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.