Although P4P is appealing in theory, policy makers continue to face challenges identifying and implementing the ideal P4P structure that appropriately motivates physicians [ 20 ].
Utilization targets for specialty care and hospital care are important benchmarks that health plans work with physicians to achieve. This article will outline the different physician payment methods with a focus on discussing the impact on quality of care and health care costs. Surveys conducted by the Physician Payment Review Commission PPRCa congressional advisory body and predecessor of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission MedPACrevealed that prior to the participating provider program, beneficiaries often did not know from one physician to the next whether they would face extra out-of-pocket charges due to balance billing and how much those amounts might be.
Finding the Tipping Point Most care delivery groups now navigate a complex mix of discounted fee-for-service commercial insurance and per case Medicare, plus some commercial insurance payment.
Risk Adjustment, and Episode Groupers For years, the limitations of healthcare claims data have been a major barrier to identifying opportunities to control healthcare spending and to developing alternative payment models.
We argue that evidence is not sufficiently strong which has served as the impetus behind the changes in physician remuneration introduced in Canada.
These restrictions were instituted to ensure that beneficiaries are aware of the financial ramifications of entering into these private contracts, and to safeguard patients and Medicare from fraud and abuse. Features of The Payment Reform Glossary include: In addition to providing definitions, the Glossary attempts to explain many of the most important words and phrases in enough detail that patients, providers, purchasers, and policy-makers can understand the advantages and disadvantages of different payment models and the rationale for including various components of payment models that might otherwise seem to make them unnecessarily complex.
Per case payment gives providers incentives to improve efficiency within cases but, like fee for service, is a volume-based system that fuels waste.
Since each have strengths and weaknesses, many jurisdictions have implemented blends of the three systems to combine the strengths and counteract the weaknesses.
A care delivery group would pay independent physicians using existing fee-for-service mechanisms but would adjust payments quarterly according to the levels of clinical quality and patient satisfaction achieved as well as total cost to care for the covered population. But to function well, such systems must adjust payments for risk, which is easier to do at the level of a population than of an individual patient.
These three payment adjustments are designed to have effects on physician treatment and referral patterns. To a much greater degree than the HMOs of that era, all proposals for pay-for-value, including capitated payment, contain measures to ensure that each patient receives all necessary and beneficial care, at least to the degree achieved by the current fee-for-service and per case payment systems.