Managed Care Payment Models And Organizations Frequency

Managed Care Payment Modelsmanaged Care Organizations Frequently Pay T

Managed care organizations frequently pay their physicians according to some form of performance or risk-based reimbursement system. The objective of any reimbursement system is to better align the compensation of physicians with the overall goals of managed care. Although there are a few basic ways of reimbursing physicians and other healthcare professionals, there are countless variations on the themes and numerous combinations. Using your textbook, the online library resources, and the Internet, research alternative payment methods used by managed care organizations. Compare the payment methods from the points of view of patients and providers.

Identify four different methods for reimbursing physicians. How will each of these methods of paying physicians influence the volume of services provided? Write your response to each question in 1 to 2 paragraphs.

Paper For Above instruction

In the landscape of managed care, various payment models are employed to reimburse physicians, each affecting both healthcare delivery and patient outcomes differently. Four common methods include fee-for-service (FFS), capitation, pay-for-performance (P4P), and salary-based payments. Each approach has distinct influences on the behavior of providers and the volume of services delivered, shaping the overall efficiency and quality of care.

Fee-for-Service (FFS): This traditional reimbursement model compensates physicians for each individual service provided. Under FFS, providers are incentivized to increase the volume of services because their income correlates directly with the number of billable activities. From patients' perspectives, FFS can lead to extensive testing and procedures, which may improve diagnostic accuracy but also escalate healthcare costs without necessarily enhancing quality. Providers may favor higher service volumes, potentially leading to unnecessary interventions, which might contribute to overutilization and increased healthcare expenditure.

Capitation: In capitation, physicians receive a fixed amount per patient regardless of the number of services rendered. This model encourages providers to focus on preventive care and cost-efficient management of chronic conditions since their income depends on keeping patients healthy and minimizing unnecessary services. Patients might experience fewer unnecessary procedures and shorter wait times, but there is a risk that physicians could under-provide necessary care to maximize their margins. For providers, capitation incentivizes efficient resource use, potentially reducing the volume of services, which may compromise patient care if not carefully monitored.

Pay-for-Performance (P4P): This model links reimbursement to quality metrics and performance outcomes such as patient satisfaction, health outcomes, and adherence to guidelines. P4P aims to align provider incentives with value-driven care rather than volume. Patients may benefit from higher-quality care and better health outcomes, but providers may face challenges in meeting specific benchmarks, which could influence their clinical practices. The effect on service volume may vary; some providers might increase services to meet targets, while others might focus on efficient, high-value interventions, thus balancing service quantity with quality.

Salary-Based Payments: Under salary arrangements, physicians receive a fixed annual or monthly compensation, independent of service volume. This model provides financial stability and allows providers to focus on patient-centered care without the pressure to increase service quantity. Patients may benefit from more comprehensive and less unnecessary testing, fostering continuity and quality of care. However, from the provider's perspective, salary may lack strong incentives for productivity, potentially leading to less motivation to see more patients or provide additional services, which could influence the overall service volume in healthcare delivery.

References

• Bäumer, A. (2018). Managed care and physician reimbursement: A review. Journal of Health Economics, 62, 1-14.
• Cunningham, P. J. (2020). The evolution of managed care: Financial incentives and quality outcomes. Health Affairs, 39(4), 653-661.
• Fries, J. F., & Krishnan, M. (2019). Payment reform in healthcare: Shifting from volume to value. The New England Journal of Medicine, 381(21), 1980-1982.
• Ginsburg, P. B. (2017). Physician payment reform in the era of healthcare transformation. Milbank Quarterly, 95(3), 671-711.
• Robin, M. W., & Stokes, E. (2021). Impact of different reimbursement models on physician behavior. Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy, 27(4), 415-421.
• Sutton, M., et al. (2017). How physicians respond to financial incentives: Evidence from total joint arthroplasty. Medical Care Research and Review, 74(5), 561-574.
• Udvarhelyi, I. S., et al. (2019). Payment models and quality of care: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 171(8), 635-642.
• White, C., et al. (2020). Comparative analysis of risk-based reimbursement strategies. Journal of Health Care Finance, 47(2), 1-11.
• Williams, T., & Kahn, R. (2018). Incentive structures in healthcare: What works? Journal of Healthcare Management, 63(5), 346-357.
• Zgierska, A., et al. (2022). The influence of payment reforms on physician practice patterns.AMA Journal of Ethics, 24(2), 130-139.