With the advent of globalized healthcare, it is more important than ever to have an efficient and effective payment system in place (Garcia, 2019). There are a variety of different global payment systems available for healthcare organizations. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and it is crucial to evaluate each to determine which best fits an organization. In this essay, we will evaluate two of these payment systems: the fee-for-service (FFS) and the capitation payment system.
Definitions of the Structure of Payment Systems
In a fee-for-service (FFS) payment system, providers are reimbursed for each service they render. This system gives providers an incentive to deliver as many services as possible, regardless of whether or not those services are needed by the patient (Zhao et al., 2018). This can result in overtreatment, which can drive costs and lead to poorer health outcomes. FFS payment systems are often used in conjunction with other payment models, such as capitation, to help control costs. In an FFS system, providers may be reimbursed at a lower rate for some services or must meet specific quality standards to receive full reimbursement. While FFS payment systems have some drawbacks, they can also incentivize providers to deliver high-quality care. When providers are paid for each service they render, they are incentivized to ensure that those services are effective and necessary. This can result in better health outcomes for patients.
A capitation payment system is a healthcare financing mechanism in which providers are paid a fixed amount per person enrolled in their care, regardless of the services rendered. This payment type encourages providers to be proactive in preventing and managing health problems, as they are not compensated for the number of services they provide (Kuang et al., 2019). Capitation can also be a funding source for population-based public health initiatives. This payment type is often used in managed care plans, such as HMOs and PPOs, to control costs. Under a capitation arrangement, providers are typically paid a monthly fee for each patient on their panel. This fee is usually based on the number of patients seen but may also consider other factors, such as the type of services provided or the geographic location of the practice.
Risk to Loss of Revenue in Each System
One of the main risks associated with FFS is that it can lead to provider overutilization, which can drive up healthcare costs. When providers are paid for each service, they are incentivized to perform as many services as possible, even if those services are not medically necessary. This can lead to unnecessary tests and procedures, increasing healthcare costs and putting patients at risk for complications. Another risk associated with FFS is that it can create a fragmented healthcare system. When providers are reimbursed for each service they provide, they are incentivized to specialize in a particular area. This can lead to a lack of coordination between different providers, making it difficult for patients to get the care they need. Finally, FFS can also lead to provider gaming. When providers are reimbursed for each service they provide, they have an incentive to diagnose and treat patients with conditions that are more expensive to treat. This can lead to higher healthcare costs and may not be in patients’ best interests.
One way providers can reduce the risk of overuse is by using evidence-based guidelines to decide which services to provide. However, even when providers use evidence-based guidelines, there is still a risk that they will provide unnecessary services to increase their revenue. Another way to reduce the risk of overuse is through bundled payments. In this system, providers are reimbursed a set amount for a group of services, regardless of how many services are provided. This gives providers an incentive only to deliver the needed services since they will not make any additional money for providing unnecessary services.
There are several risks to loss of revenue in capitalization payment systems. One risk is that payments may not be received promptly (Zaroh et al., 2019). This can happen if the payer is late in making the payment or if the payment is sent to the wrong address. Another risk is that the payment may be lost or stolen. This can happen if the payment is not adequately secured or if it is not properly insured. Finally, there is the risk that the payment may be declined. This can happen if the payer’s bank does not accept the payment or if the payment is not correctly processed.
There are several ways to overcome these risks. One way is to use a third-party payment processor. This way, the payment is processed by a company specializing in processing payments (Godfrey et al., 2018). This can help to ensure that the payment is received promptly. Another way to overcome these risks is to use a secure payment system. This way, the payment is encrypted and sent over a secure connection. This can help to prevent the payment from being lost or stolen. Finally, you can use a payment gateway. This way, the payment is processed through a company specializing in processing payments. This can help to ensure that the payment is processed correctly and that it is not declined.
Advantages of Fee-For-Service System
One advantage of the fee-for-service payment system is that it gives providers an incentive to perform as many services as possible since they will be paid for each one. This can lead to better patient care, as providers are incentivized to do whatever is necessary to help them (Behrendt et al., 2018). Second, fee-for-service payment gives patients more control over their care. They can choose which provider to see and which services to receive. This can be helpful if patients want to receive a second opinion or if they want to choose a provider who they feel will give them the best care possible. Finally, fee-for-service payment is more superficial than some alternative reimbursement models, such as capitation. This means that it is easier for providers to understand and predict their income, making it easier to run a successful practice.
Disadvantages of the Fee-for-Service Sytems
One of the significant disadvantages of the FFS payment system is that it can lead to overuse of healthcare services, which can drive up healthcare costs. Compared to patients in countries with different payment systems, patients in the United States are more likely to receive unnecessary care, such as imaging tests and procedures that provide no clinical benefit (Shanthanna et al., 2020). Another disadvantage of the FFS payment system is that it can create a financial barrier to caring for patients. Under FFS, patients are typically responsible for paying a provider directly for each service they receive. This can be a significant burden for patients with limited incomes or who need to receive multiple services. Finally, the FFS payment system can incentivize providers to choose more expensive treatments, even when cheaper alternatives are available. This is because providers are reimbursed based on the cost of the treatment they deliver, not on the clinical outcomes of their patients. As a result, patients may receive more expensive, brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives would have been just as effective.
Advantages of Capitalization System
There are many advantages to the capitalization payment system. The first advantage is that it allows for more efficient use of capital. By making payments in advance, businesses can free up cash that would otherwise be tied up in receivables (Lesina, 2021). This can be especially helpful during periods of tight cash flow. Another advantage of capitalization is that it can help businesses build good relationships with their suppliers. By paying on time, businesses demonstrate their commitment to meeting their obligations. This can lead to suppliers being more willing to work with the business in the future, which can be beneficial in terms of getting better terms or prices. Finally, capitalization can help businesses manage their risk exposure. By paying in advance, businesses can avoid the risk of non-payment if their customers default on their obligations. This can be especially helpful for businesses operating in industries with high customer risk levels.
Disadvantages of the Capitalization System
There are several disadvantages to the capitalization payment system. The most significant disadvantage is that it can lead to higher interest rates. When lenders offer loans with capitalization payments, they are effectively offering a higher interest rate than they would for a traditional loan (Dudukalov et al., 2021). This is because they are taking on more risk by lending money to someone who may not be able to make their monthly payments. Another disadvantage of the capitalization payment system is that it can lengthen the repayment period. This is because the borrower starts the repayment process repeatedly with each missed payment. This can significantly impact the borrower’s financial situation, as they may find themselves in debt for longer than they anticipated. Finally, the capitalization payment system can also lead to higher fees. Lenders often charge higher fees for loans with capitalization payments, as they are taking on more risk. This can make it difficult for borrowers to find an affordable loan.
How to Pay for Performance can be Added to Each System
There are a few ways that pay for performance can be added to the fee-for-service payment system. One way is to create a system where providers are paid a higher rate for achieving better patient outcomes. This could be done by setting targets for patient satisfaction, readmission rates, and length of stay (Brosig-Koch et al., 2021). Providers who meet or exceed the targets would be eligible for bonuses. Another way to incorporate pay-for-performance into fee-for-service is to create a system where providers are reimbursed based on the quality of care they deliver. Hence, this is achieved by measuring the percentage of patients receiving recommended screenings and vaccinations or the number of patients with blood pressure and cholesterol under control. Providers who meet or exceed quality benchmarks would be eligible for higher reimbursement rates.
In a capitalization payment system, pay for performance can be added in several ways. One way is to link a portion of the payment to a measure of productivity, such as output per hour worked (Abdulsalam et al., 2021). This incentivizes employees to increase their productivity to receive a higher payment. Another way to link pay to performance is to base a portion of the payment on how well the company does financially. This incentivizes employees to help the company improve its financial performance. Finally, pay for performance can also be linked to customer satisfaction or quality measures. This provides an incentive for employees to improve the quality of their work to receive a higher payment.
Conclusion
The fee-for-service payment method is the most common type used in the healthcare industry. It reimburses providers based on the number of services they render. The main advantage of this payment method is that it gives providers an incentive to provide more services. The main disadvantage is that it can lead to overutilization and waste. The capitalization payment method reimburses providers based on the cost of their capital equipment and facilities. The main advantage of this payment method is that it encourages providers to invest in capital equipment and facilities. The main disadvantage is that it can lead to underutilization and inefficiency. Overall, payment systems have their pros and cons. It is essential to weigh these factors when making healthcare payment reform decisions.
References
Abdulsalam, D., Maltarich, M. A., Nyberg, A. J., Reilly, G., & Martin, M. (2021). Individualized pay-for-performance arrangements: Peer reactions and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1202.
Behrendt, C. A., Debus, E. S., Mani, K., & Sedrakyan, A. (2018). The strengths and limitations of claims-based research in countries with the fee for service reimbursement. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 56(5), 615-616.
Brosig-Koch, J., Groß, M., Hennig-Schmidt, H., Kairies-Schwarz, N., & Wiesen, D. (2021). Physicians’ incentives, patients’ characteristics, and quality of care: A systematic experimental comparison of fee-for-service, capitation, and pay for performance (No. 923). Ruhr Economic Papers.
Dudukalov, E. (2021, February). Cryptocurrency is a factor in National Payment System Improvement in the process of the Economy’s digitalization. In Cryptocurrency as a Factor for National Payment System Improvement in the Process of Economy’s Digitalization/O. Sorokina, E. Dudukalov, L. Guzikova, D. Ushakov-E3S Web of Conferences.-Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences, Volume (No. 258, p. 06044).
García, P. J. (2019). Corruption in global health: the open secret. The Lancet, 394(10214), 2119-2124.
Godfrey-Welch, D., Lagrois, R., Law, J., Anderwald, R. S., & Engels, D. W. (2018). Blockchain in payment card systems. SMU Data Science Review, 1(1), 3.
KUANG, S., JING, Q., ZHU, Z., CUI, B., CHEN, Y., ZOU, M., … & CHANG, J. (2019). Case analysis and enlightenment of capitation payment system reform. Chinese Journal of Hospital Administration, 353-357.
Lesina, L., & Tsindeliani, I. A. (2021). Current Trends in Counteracting Thin (Insufficient) Capitalization in the Russian Legal System. Interfax, 49(8/9).
Shanthanna, H., Strand, N. H., Provenzano, D. A., Lobo, C. A., Eldabe, S., Bhatia, A., … & Narouze, S. (2020). Caring for patients with pain during the COVID‐19 pandemic: consensus recommendations from an international expert panel. Anaesthesia, 75(7), 935-944.
Zahroh, A. H., Putri, R. A., Shima, L., Erdayani, E., Martaliza, R., Anggoro, T. P., & Wulansari, W. (2019). Risk Adjustment of Capitation Payment System: What Can Indonesia Adopt from other Countries?. Jurnal Ekonomi Kesehatan Indonesia, 3(1).
Zhao, C., Wang, C., Shen, C., & Wang, Q. (2018). Diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based case-mix funding system, a promising alternative for fee-for-service payment in China. Bioscience trends, 12(2), 109-115.
write