The Joint Learning Network for Universal Health Coverage systematically documents the reforms of its member countries and other countries that have expanded health coverage through demand-side financing. The case studies contained in these pages are brief, comparative and modular in nature, describing the key highlights and technical features of each program.
Compare various dimensions of country reform efforts using our interactive tool.
| Program | Provider Payment Mechanisms | Provider payment mechanisms |
|---|---|---|
| Vietnam: Compulsory and Voluntary Health Insurance Schemes |
|
Although there has been some innovation in provider reimbursement over the past few years, fee-for-service (FFS) remains the dominant payment mechanism. Rates are set by the fee schedule, and have remained unchanged since the schedule was created in 1995. Read full sectionAlthough there has been some innovation in provider reimbursement over the past few years, fee-for-service (FFS) remains the dominant payment mechanism. Rates are set by the fee schedule, and have remained unchanged since the schedule was created in 1995. In light of concerns that FFS payments encourage providers to treat patients more than is clinically necessary, the Vietnamese government has begun exploring alternative methods of payment. Additionally, an incentive-based structure for providers has been put in place that has tied provider payment to the financial performance of the facility. The FFS rates were created by an interministerial commission consisting of representatives from MoH, the Ministry of Finance (MoF), the Ministry of Labor, War Invalids, and Social Affairs (MOLISA) and the State Price Commission (SPC). The fees in the schedule are a mixture of per-item charges and per diem rates, with ranges for each type, and variations according to the type of hospital (higher class hospitals being able to charge more). With the exception of the addition of 1,022 new procedures in 2006, fees have been unchanged since the major initiative of 1995, not even to adjust for inflation. However, the government plans to update the fee schedule to reflect current rates. Note that drugs prices are not regulated by VSS (though they are monitored), and providers have the scope, in practice, to levy unofficial charges. The New Health Insurance Law 2008 provides for several different provider payment methods, including FFS, capitation, diagnostic-related group (DRG) or other modes of payment. Innovation in provider payment remains a top priority for reforms to improve the health insurance system. Beyond fees, Vietnam has an incentive structure for providers tied to the financial performance of their facility. Under Decree 33/1995, providers had limited ability to retain a portion (30%) of gross revenues from user fees. However, under this system, opportunities for incentive payments are highly variable based on the facility and the population they serve, and this structure had high potential for creating further imbalances in the system. This incentive structure has since been replaced by Decrees 10/2002 and 43/2006, which allow hospitals greater discretion over financial operations, management of human resources, organization of services, and choices of services offered. By providing greater autonomy to facilities over the management of their costs and revenues, the government hopes to better align the incentives of providers (hospital staff) with the overall financial performance of the health facility. Contracting between VSS and a health care provider is normally done for providers who operate as a separate legal entity. In effect, these are limited to provincial, central, and district level hospitals. Commune Health Centers (CHC) and inter-commune polyclinics can provide services to insured members but they are supervised by District Health Centers (DHC) and hence they do not possess a legal entity status to operate a bank account. VSS therefore cannot contract directly with them but must coordinate commune level health service provision under the supervision of the DHCs. With regard to quality control, the VSS plays little to no role in overseeing the quality of care. They serve primarily as the bill-payer and general orchestrator of the system. There are currently no clinical guidelines enforced by the MoH or VSS, and there is no credible quality assurance mechanism. Providers are largely free to treat patients as they choose. Compulsory and Voluntary Health Insurance SchemesProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service Although there has been some innovation in provider reimbursement over the past few years, fee-for-service (FFS) remains the dominant payment mechanism. Rates are set by the fee schedule, and have remained unchanged since the schedule was created in 1995. In light of concerns that FFS payments encourage providers to treat patients more than is clinically necessary, the Vietnamese government has begun exploring alternative methods of payment. Additionally, an incentive-based structure for providers has been put in place that has tied provider payment to the financial performance of the facility. The FFS rates were created by an interministerial commission consisting of representatives from MoH, the Ministry of Finance (MoF), the Ministry of Labor, War Invalids, and Social Affairs (MOLISA) and the State Price Commission (SPC). The fees in the schedule are a mixture of per-item charges and per diem rates, with ranges for each type, and variations according to the type of hospital (higher class hospitals being able to charge more). With the exception of the addition of 1,022 new procedures in 2006, fees have been unchanged since the major initiative of 1995, not even to adjust for inflation. However, the government plans to update the fee schedule to reflect current rates. Note that drugs prices are not regulated by VSS (though they are monitored), and providers have the scope, in practice, to levy unofficial charges. The New Health Insurance Law 2008 provides for several different provider payment methods, including FFS, capitation, diagnostic-related group (DRG) or other modes of payment. Innovation in provider payment remains a top priority for reforms to improve the health insurance system. Beyond fees, Vietnam has an incentive structure for providers tied to the financial performance of their facility. Under Decree 33/1995, providers had limited ability to retain a portion (30%) of gross revenues from user fees. However, under this system, opportunities for incentive payments are highly variable based on the facility and the population they serve, and this structure had high potential for creating further imbalances in the system. This incentive structure has since been replaced by Decrees 10/2002 and 43/2006, which allow hospitals greater discretion over financial operations, management of human resources, organization of services, and choices of services offered. By providing greater autonomy to facilities over the management of their costs and revenues, the government hopes to better align the incentives of providers (hospital staff) with the overall financial performance of the health facility. Contracting between VSS and a health care provider is normally done for providers who operate as a separate legal entity. In effect, these are limited to provincial, central, and district level hospitals. Commune Health Centers (CHC) and inter-commune polyclinics can provide services to insured members but they are supervised by District Health Centers (DHC) and hence they do not possess a legal entity status to operate a bank account. VSS therefore cannot contract directly with them but must coordinate commune level health service provision under the supervision of the DHCs. With regard to quality control, the VSS plays little to no role in overseeing the quality of care. They serve primarily as the bill-payer and general orchestrator of the system. There are currently no clinical guidelines enforced by the MoH or VSS, and there is no credible quality assurance mechanism. Providers are largely free to treat patients as they choose. |
| Estonia: Estonian Health Insurance Fund |
|
The EHIF negotiates capped cost and volume contracts with hospitals at the start of each year. These contracts contain provisions on service quality and access, as well as an extended cost and volume section. The contracting process begins with a needs assessment based on historical data regarding health service utilization along with existing waiting times. The EHIF does not have to contract with all providers. Still most of the services are purchased from hospital master plan hospitals with which EHIF has contracts. A small amount of funds go to selective contracting which provides private providers the opportunity to get some health insurance funding. These private providers, however, tend to be primarily funded through OOP payments. A large part of the standard contract conditions are negotiated with the Hospital Association, but there are also financial appendices that are negotiated with each provider individually. Contracts are monitored quarterly using the Management Information System. Read full sectionThe EHIF negotiates capped cost and volume contracts with hospitals at the start of each year. These contracts contain provisions on service quality and access, as well as an extended cost and volume section. The contracting process begins with a needs assessment based on historical data regarding health service utilization along with existing waiting times. The EHIF does not have to contract with all providers. Still most of the services are purchased from hospital master plan hospitals with which EHIF has contracts. A small amount of funds go to selective contracting which provides private providers the opportunity to get some health insurance funding. These private providers, however, tend to be primarily funded through OOP payments. A large part of the standard contract conditions are negotiated with the Hospital Association, but there are also financial appendices that are negotiated with each provider individually. Contracts are monitored quarterly using the Management Information System.
Actual payment methods and prices are regulated in a single government health service list that lies outside of the contract negotiation process and which is updated at least once per year. All providers are paid the same prices. The list includes over 2,000 different items and a range of different payment methods. Outpatient care is normally paid on a fee-for-service basis and inpatient care is paid with a mix of fee-for-service, per diem, and diagnosis-related group (DRG) methods. Primary care family physicians are paid through per capita payments that are adjusted based on the age of the patients. If a family physician has fewer than 1,200 patients, he will still receive a capitation payment for 1,200 patients in order to cover fixed costs. Family physicians can also receive additional fee-for-service payments up to 32% of the capitation amount received. Contracts for family medicine are agreed to between the EHIF and the Estonian Association of Family Doctors. The financial stipulations of the contracts with particular family doctors are reviewed every quarter in order to align with changes in the number of patients on the practice list. Specialist care is also compensated using different types of payment methods depending on the services provided. These methods include fee-for-service, visit fees, per diem, diagnosis-related group, and case-based complex pricing. Since the 1990s, there has been a gradual move away from fee-for service toward case-based payments.
Estonian Health Insurance FundProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service, Capitation, Diagnosis-Related Groups The EHIF negotiates capped cost and volume contracts with hospitals at the start of each year. These contracts contain provisions on service quality and access, as well as an extended cost and volume section. The contracting process begins with a needs assessment based on historical data regarding health service utilization along with existing waiting times. The EHIF does not have to contract with all providers. Still most of the services are purchased from hospital master plan hospitals with which EHIF has contracts. A small amount of funds go to selective contracting which provides private providers the opportunity to get some health insurance funding. These private providers, however, tend to be primarily funded through OOP payments. A large part of the standard contract conditions are negotiated with the Hospital Association, but there are also financial appendices that are negotiated with each provider individually. Contracts are monitored quarterly using the Management Information System.
Actual payment methods and prices are regulated in a single government health service list that lies outside of the contract negotiation process and which is updated at least once per year. All providers are paid the same prices. The list includes over 2,000 different items and a range of different payment methods. Outpatient care is normally paid on a fee-for-service basis and inpatient care is paid with a mix of fee-for-service, per diem, and diagnosis-related group (DRG) methods. Primary care family physicians are paid through per capita payments that are adjusted based on the age of the patients. If a family physician has fewer than 1,200 patients, he will still receive a capitation payment for 1,200 patients in order to cover fixed costs. Family physicians can also receive additional fee-for-service payments up to 32% of the capitation amount received. Contracts for family medicine are agreed to between the EHIF and the Estonian Association of Family Doctors. The financial stipulations of the contracts with particular family doctors are reviewed every quarter in order to align with changes in the number of patients on the practice list. Specialist care is also compensated using different types of payment methods depending on the services provided. These methods include fee-for-service, visit fees, per diem, diagnosis-related group, and case-based complex pricing. Since the 1990s, there has been a gradual move away from fee-for service toward case-based payments.
|
| Rwanda: Mutuelles de Sante |
|
The health insurance system in Rwanda has two main channels for financing: the demand side – the insurance programs, and the supply side – transfers from the treasury to districts and health facilities. On the demand side, services are financed through three main channels: demand-based user payments, demand-based payments from Mutuelles, and demand-based payments from RAMA and MMI. Read full sectionThe health insurance system in Rwanda has two main channels for financing: the demand side – the insurance programs, and the supply side – transfers from the treasury to districts and health facilities. On the demand side, services are financed through three main channels: demand-based user payments, demand-based payments from Mutuelles, and demand-based payments from RAMA and MMI.
On the supply side, financing flows from the central government towards health providers through multiple block grants, which provide hospitals with greater degrees of autonomy. A key issue on the supply-side financing is the equity of the needs based transfers against the historical criteria. The government hopes to progressively move towards increasing the importance of needs-based transfers and decreasing historical transfers.
A key issue on the supply-side financing is the equity of the needs based transfers against the historical criteria. The government hopes to progressively move towards increasing the importance of needs-based transfers and decreasing historical transfers. In addition, the substantial amount of donor funding incurs high overhead costs and involves a lack of clarity. Mutuelles de SanteProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service, Capitation The health insurance system in Rwanda has two main channels for financing: the demand side – the insurance programs, and the supply side – transfers from the treasury to districts and health facilities. On the demand side, services are financed through three main channels: demand-based user payments, demand-based payments from Mutuelles, and demand-based payments from RAMA and MMI.
On the supply side, financing flows from the central government towards health providers through multiple block grants, which provide hospitals with greater degrees of autonomy. A key issue on the supply-side financing is the equity of the needs based transfers against the historical criteria. The government hopes to progressively move towards increasing the importance of needs-based transfers and decreasing historical transfers.
A key issue on the supply-side financing is the equity of the needs based transfers against the historical criteria. The government hopes to progressively move towards increasing the importance of needs-based transfers and decreasing historical transfers. In addition, the substantial amount of donor funding incurs high overhead costs and involves a lack of clarity. |
| Korea, Rep.: National Health Insurance Program |
|
Providers have historically been reimbursed by the regulated fee-for-service system since the beginning of the national health insurance program (NHIP). There is no difference between public and private providers from the health insurer side regarding fee schedules or reimbursement rates. The fee-for-service system has led to an increase in volume and intensity of services in the long run. However, because fee regulation is applied to all providers, both public and private, it has contributed to overall cost containment and a rapid extension of population coverage. South Korea has single pooled purchasing, and claim reviews and payments are centralized and monitored by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MoHW). Read full sectionProviders have historically been reimbursed by the regulated fee-for-service system since the beginning of the national health insurance program (NHIP). There is no difference between public and private providers from the health insurer side regarding fee schedules or reimbursement rates. The fee-for-service system has led to an increase in volume and intensity of services in the long run. However, because fee regulation is applied to all providers, both public and private, it has contributed to overall cost containment and a rapid extension of population coverage. South Korea has single pooled purchasing, and claim reviews and payments are centralized and monitored by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MoHW). In 1997 the government launched a Diagnosis Related Group Pilot program for voluntary participating health facilities. The pilot program showed positive impacts on the behavior of health providers, such as the reduction in the length of stay, medical expenses, the average number of tests and a decreased use of antibiotics. However, there is strong opposition from providers, which has blocked the extension of DRG as a provider payment mechanism throughout the country. The pharmaceutical dispensing was separated from prescribing in 2000. This bars pharmacists from selling antibiotics to customers without a prescription. As such, physicians are not allowed to dispense medicines. National Health Insurance ProgramProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service Providers have historically been reimbursed by the regulated fee-for-service system since the beginning of the national health insurance program (NHIP). There is no difference between public and private providers from the health insurer side regarding fee schedules or reimbursement rates. The fee-for-service system has led to an increase in volume and intensity of services in the long run. However, because fee regulation is applied to all providers, both public and private, it has contributed to overall cost containment and a rapid extension of population coverage. South Korea has single pooled purchasing, and claim reviews and payments are centralized and monitored by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MoHW). In 1997 the government launched a Diagnosis Related Group Pilot program for voluntary participating health facilities. The pilot program showed positive impacts on the behavior of health providers, such as the reduction in the length of stay, medical expenses, the average number of tests and a decreased use of antibiotics. However, there is strong opposition from providers, which has blocked the extension of DRG as a provider payment mechanism throughout the country. The pharmaceutical dispensing was separated from prescribing in 2000. This bars pharmacists from selling antibiotics to customers without a prescription. As such, physicians are not allowed to dispense medicines. |
| Ghana: National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) |
|
In 2004, a memorandum of understanding regarding the services covered and prices charged was signed by the NHIC and service provider representatives. Claims are filed by the health facilities and the district schemes pay providers on a DRG basis. Typically, a reimbursement check comes 6 months after a claim is submitted. Read full sectionIn 2004, a memorandum of understanding regarding the services covered and prices charged was signed by the NHIC and service provider representatives. Claims are filed by the health facilities and the district schemes pay providers on a DRG basis. Typically, a reimbursement check comes 6 months after a claim is submitted. This memorandum now forms the basis of all contracts between the health schemes and providers. Claims processing is a manual process, with some automation in enrollment verifications and claims documentation. The amount of the reimbursement is often less than 100%, with some schemes, for example, paying 70% (e.g., Ossu Kottery – urban scheme in higher income area of Accra), others paying as low as 40% (e.g., Dodowah, rural area outside Accra). The balance is supposed to be paid at later date. National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS)Provider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Diagnosis-Related Groups In 2004, a memorandum of understanding regarding the services covered and prices charged was signed by the NHIC and service provider representatives. Claims are filed by the health facilities and the district schemes pay providers on a DRG basis. Typically, a reimbursement check comes 6 months after a claim is submitted. This memorandum now forms the basis of all contracts between the health schemes and providers. Claims processing is a manual process, with some automation in enrollment verifications and claims documentation. The amount of the reimbursement is often less than 100%, with some schemes, for example, paying 70% (e.g., Ossu Kottery – urban scheme in higher income area of Accra), others paying as low as 40% (e.g., Dodowah, rural area outside Accra). The balance is supposed to be paid at later date. |
| Nigeria: National Health Insurance System |
|
Patients are allowed to choose their primary provider from the list of accredited facilities, which includes both public and private providers. The provider network is used for access and secondary referrals, which acts to control costs and maintain viability of the system. Provider payment mechanisms are primarily determined by the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) Governing Council. Read full sectionPatients are allowed to choose their primary provider from the list of accredited facilities, which includes both public and private providers. The provider network is used for access and secondary referrals, which acts to control costs and maintain viability of the system. Provider payment mechanisms are primarily determined by the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) Governing Council. For private insurers, this is determined between HMOs and Providers, with oversight from the central government, and referral to specialist care follows guidelines that are managed accordingly. Decree 35 determined that the only lawful payment systems to be included in NHIS are capitation, fee-for-service, per diem, or case payment. A capitation system is the predominant form of provider payment used to pay primary healthcare facilities, while secondary and tertiary healthcare facilities are paid by fee for service and per diem. National Health Insurance SystemProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service, Capitation Patients are allowed to choose their primary provider from the list of accredited facilities, which includes both public and private providers. The provider network is used for access and secondary referrals, which acts to control costs and maintain viability of the system. Provider payment mechanisms are primarily determined by the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) Governing Council. For private insurers, this is determined between HMOs and Providers, with oversight from the central government, and referral to specialist care follows guidelines that are managed accordingly. Decree 35 determined that the only lawful payment systems to be included in NHIS are capitation, fee-for-service, per diem, or case payment. A capitation system is the predominant form of provider payment used to pay primary healthcare facilities, while secondary and tertiary healthcare facilities are paid by fee for service and per diem. |
| Kenya: National Hospital Insurance Fund |
|
The National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) and private insurers have negotiated fixed reimbursement rates for in-patient care. The reimbursement amount varies slightly with the level of provider, the diagnosis, and the type of care required. “Contract A” and “Contract B” providers are typically reimbursed through case based or fee-for-service provider payments. “Contract C” providers are reimbursed through a per diem rebate system. Claims are submitted by hospitals directly to the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF), and then hospitals are paid for procedures and users are reimbursed. Most claims are reimbursed within 14 days of the claim received. This process is computerized and is designed to be transparent to the providers. Read full sectionThe National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) and private insurers have negotiated fixed reimbursement rates for in-patient care. The reimbursement amount varies slightly with the level of provider, the diagnosis, and the type of care required. “Contract A” and “Contract B” providers are typically reimbursed through case based or fee-for-service provider payments. “Contract C” providers are reimbursed through a per diem rebate system. Claims are submitted by hospitals directly to the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF), and then hospitals are paid for procedures and users are reimbursed. Most claims are reimbursed within 14 days of the claim received. This process is computerized and is designed to be transparent to the providers. Moving forward, the NHIF intends to increasingly employ case-based payments for inpatient services. As the NHIF adds outpatient care to the benefits package with implementation of the recently gazette changes, capitation to comprehensive-care facilities will be the intended payment mechanisms. The fee-for-service system has been identified as one of the key drivers of escalating health care costs, as it creates incentives to encourage over-servicing and supplier-induced demand. The majority of services covered by the NHIF are delivered through private facilities, indicating a preference by the bulk of salaried workers (who make up the majority of those covered by NHIF) toward private providers rather than public institutions. Of overall health expenditures in Kenya, Secondary and Tertiary care providers traditionally absorb approximately 70% of health expenditures, though health centers and primary care units provide the bulk of services. Health personnel expenditures are high—accounting for about 50% of the budget—compared to expenditures on drugs, pharmaceuticals, and operations and maintenance. Expenditures for curative care constitute more than 48% of the total MOH budget. Health care facilities also receive payments from the Ministry of Health (MOH), which releases funds to the district and national level hospitals. Allocations to the district health centers and dispensaries are in the form of line-item budgets, whereas national level hospitals receive global budgets. Salaries to staff are paid directly by the MOH. Drugs are also procured centrally, by the Kenya Medical Suppliers Agency (KEMSA) and then delivered to district and local level facilities. At the local level, the process of disbursement of funds is slow, which causes uncertainty for the providers, impedes their planning process, and encourages district level managers to await funding before they procure services, and creates an incentive to under-service clients. National Hospital Insurance FundProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service, Diagnosis-Related Groups, Other The National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) and private insurers have negotiated fixed reimbursement rates for in-patient care. The reimbursement amount varies slightly with the level of provider, the diagnosis, and the type of care required. “Contract A” and “Contract B” providers are typically reimbursed through case based or fee-for-service provider payments. “Contract C” providers are reimbursed through a per diem rebate system. Claims are submitted by hospitals directly to the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF), and then hospitals are paid for procedures and users are reimbursed. Most claims are reimbursed within 14 days of the claim received. This process is computerized and is designed to be transparent to the providers. Moving forward, the NHIF intends to increasingly employ case-based payments for inpatient services. As the NHIF adds outpatient care to the benefits package with implementation of the recently gazette changes, capitation to comprehensive-care facilities will be the intended payment mechanisms. The fee-for-service system has been identified as one of the key drivers of escalating health care costs, as it creates incentives to encourage over-servicing and supplier-induced demand. The majority of services covered by the NHIF are delivered through private facilities, indicating a preference by the bulk of salaried workers (who make up the majority of those covered by NHIF) toward private providers rather than public institutions. Of overall health expenditures in Kenya, Secondary and Tertiary care providers traditionally absorb approximately 70% of health expenditures, though health centers and primary care units provide the bulk of services. Health personnel expenditures are high—accounting for about 50% of the budget—compared to expenditures on drugs, pharmaceuticals, and operations and maintenance. Expenditures for curative care constitute more than 48% of the total MOH budget. Health care facilities also receive payments from the Ministry of Health (MOH), which releases funds to the district and national level hospitals. Allocations to the district health centers and dispensaries are in the form of line-item budgets, whereas national level hospitals receive global budgets. Salaries to staff are paid directly by the MOH. Drugs are also procured centrally, by the Kenya Medical Suppliers Agency (KEMSA) and then delivered to district and local level facilities. At the local level, the process of disbursement of funds is slow, which causes uncertainty for the providers, impedes their planning process, and encourages district level managers to await funding before they procure services, and creates an incentive to under-service clients. |
| India: RSBY |
|
Providers are paid on a fee-for-service basis, with packages defined for each of the covered procedures and interventions. Claims submission and processing is cashless, allowing hospitals and insurers to submit claims and payments online. Read full sectionProviders are paid on a fee-for-service basis, with packages defined for each of the covered procedures and interventions. Claims submission and processing is cashless, allowing hospitals and insurers to submit claims and payments online. The process for reporting and paying claims is designed to be simple and cashless from the perspective of the provider and beneficiary. In general, the process looks as follows:
At present there are no quality standards being utilized by RSBY, but the national team is working with states and insurers to develop an incentive based quality management system for providers (e.g., a system where hospitals are graded according specific quality parameters and hospitals with better quality are paid at a higher rate by insurers). RSBYProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service, Diagnosis-Related Groups Providers are paid on a fee-for-service basis, with packages defined for each of the covered procedures and interventions. Claims submission and processing is cashless, allowing hospitals and insurers to submit claims and payments online. The process for reporting and paying claims is designed to be simple and cashless from the perspective of the provider and beneficiary. In general, the process looks as follows:
At present there are no quality standards being utilized by RSBY, but the national team is working with states and insurers to develop an incentive based quality management system for providers (e.g., a system where hospitals are graded according specific quality parameters and hospitals with better quality are paid at a higher rate by insurers). |
