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. |
| Indonesia: Jamkesmas |
|
While the Jamkesmas benefit package is standardized at the national level, districts are able to set the reimbursement rates for various services based on local conditions. Though the scheme initially utilized a fee-for-service reimbursement mechanism Jamkesmas began transitioning to a DRG provider payment system in 2009. All hospitals are being incorporated into the DRG payment process by the end of 2010. Read full sectionWhile the Jamkesmas benefit package is standardized at the national level, districts are able to set the reimbursement rates for various services based on local conditions. Though the scheme initially utilized a fee-for-service reimbursement mechanism Jamkesmas began transitioning to a DRG provider payment system in 2009. All hospitals are being incorporated into the DRG payment process by the end of 2010. Jamkesmas has “verificators” in every network hospital. These verificators have been put in place to assure reimbursements are made only for documentable claims with a full medical record. Verificators process claims and send them electronically to the MoH. Verificators have standard review procedures which they follow to document every case. These standards were developed by the MoH. Once the MoH receives the claim, it begins the reimbursement process to providers. While there has been broad experience with contracting public and private providers through the publically-funded schemes, the contract mechanisms have not used reimbursement or payment policies strategically to drive improvements in quality or efficiency. There are examples in maternal health where the current reimbursement system by Jamkesmas has created the wrong incentives for providers, such as not reimbursing midwives for pre-delivery care if there is post-partum hemorrhage. In addition, once a patient is referred to the hospital, the hospital receives a full reimbursement for delivery, while the midwife receives no fee, thereby discouraging midwives from referring patients to hospitals for complications as they would lose income. JamkesmasProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service, Diagnosis-Related Groups While the Jamkesmas benefit package is standardized at the national level, districts are able to set the reimbursement rates for various services based on local conditions. Though the scheme initially utilized a fee-for-service reimbursement mechanism Jamkesmas began transitioning to a DRG provider payment system in 2009. All hospitals are being incorporated into the DRG payment process by the end of 2010. Jamkesmas has “verificators” in every network hospital. These verificators have been put in place to assure reimbursements are made only for documentable claims with a full medical record. Verificators process claims and send them electronically to the MoH. Verificators have standard review procedures which they follow to document every case. These standards were developed by the MoH. Once the MoH receives the claim, it begins the reimbursement process to providers. While there has been broad experience with contracting public and private providers through the publically-funded schemes, the contract mechanisms have not used reimbursement or payment policies strategically to drive improvements in quality or efficiency. There are examples in maternal health where the current reimbursement system by Jamkesmas has created the wrong incentives for providers, such as not reimbursing midwives for pre-delivery care if there is post-partum hemorrhage. In addition, once a patient is referred to the hospital, the hospital receives a full reimbursement for delivery, while the midwife receives no fee, thereby discouraging midwives from referring patients to hospitals for complications as they would lose income. |
| : Taiwan: National Health Insurance |
|
Providers obtain their revenues from 3 sources: 1) payments by the NHI; 2) patient user fees and co-payments; and 3) proceeds from the sale of products and services not covered by the NHI. The government acts as the single-payer system with a uniform payment schedule that has effectively controlled the cost shifting that occurred frequently before the implementation of NHI. Read full sectionProviders obtain their revenues from 3 sources: 1) payments by the NHI; 2) patient user fees and co-payments; and 3) proceeds from the sale of products and services not covered by the NHI. The government acts as the single-payer system with a uniform payment schedule that has effectively controlled the cost shifting that occurred frequently before the implementation of NHI. Initially, NHI providers were paid on a fee-for-service basis, however providers were able to make sizable profits by overprescribing medications and ordering unnecessary procedures, leading to quickly rising per person expenditures. Hospitals in Taiwan reward their staff physicians individually for bringing in revenue, known as a “professional fee,” further encouraging physician-induced over-prescription. The Bureau of National Health Insurance (BNHI) estimates that overuse and misuse of health care may constitute up to a third of BNHI’s expenditures. Facing the need for cost containment, BNHI introduced a reasonable volume standard for outpatient visits coupled with a sliding fee schedule for visits above the volume standard, which discouraged supply-induced demand and reduced the number of visits per person. BNHI also reduced the high profit margin that clinics and hospitals can obtain from dispensing drugs by reducing the reimbursement rates for drugs, using reference pricing, and encouraging the use of generic drugs. The NHI experimented with different payment systems, such as diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) for hospitals, primary care capitation for certain population groups, and even performance-based payments. DRGs were phased in for the 50 most common diseases and treatments, which effectively reduced the average length-of-stay in hospitals. The ultimate cost control measure, however, has been the imposition of global budgets for hospital outpatient and inpatient services in 2002. This remains highly controversial because global budgeting incorporates an aggregate fixed sum budget imposed on all hospitals in Taiwan collectively, creating a zero-sum game in which the players cannot effectively police one another. Reimbursement contracts are negotiated with health care providers on a fee-for-service basis with a uniform pay schedule. A deflation mechanism engages once a service quota is reached, resulting in declining reimbursement rates. Under the global budget payment system, the NHI Medical Expenditure Negotiation Committee convenes and negotiates overall caps on total medical payments based on a set of equations and indicators prior to the beginning of a fiscal year. Along with the implementation of global budgets, the NHI took several measures to control the demand for selected types of health care, such as increasing copayments for high users of drugs and outpatient services. The global budget payment system with these measures has been successful in containing the annual growth in the health insurance system's expenditures with spending growth leveling out at below 5% a year since it was fully implemented in July 2002. National Health InsuranceProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service, Diagnosis-Related Groups, Global budgets Providers obtain their revenues from 3 sources: 1) payments by the NHI; 2) patient user fees and co-payments; and 3) proceeds from the sale of products and services not covered by the NHI. The government acts as the single-payer system with a uniform payment schedule that has effectively controlled the cost shifting that occurred frequently before the implementation of NHI. Initially, NHI providers were paid on a fee-for-service basis, however providers were able to make sizable profits by overprescribing medications and ordering unnecessary procedures, leading to quickly rising per person expenditures. Hospitals in Taiwan reward their staff physicians individually for bringing in revenue, known as a “professional fee,” further encouraging physician-induced over-prescription. The Bureau of National Health Insurance (BNHI) estimates that overuse and misuse of health care may constitute up to a third of BNHI’s expenditures. Facing the need for cost containment, BNHI introduced a reasonable volume standard for outpatient visits coupled with a sliding fee schedule for visits above the volume standard, which discouraged supply-induced demand and reduced the number of visits per person. BNHI also reduced the high profit margin that clinics and hospitals can obtain from dispensing drugs by reducing the reimbursement rates for drugs, using reference pricing, and encouraging the use of generic drugs. The NHI experimented with different payment systems, such as diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) for hospitals, primary care capitation for certain population groups, and even performance-based payments. DRGs were phased in for the 50 most common diseases and treatments, which effectively reduced the average length-of-stay in hospitals. The ultimate cost control measure, however, has been the imposition of global budgets for hospital outpatient and inpatient services in 2002. This remains highly controversial because global budgeting incorporates an aggregate fixed sum budget imposed on all hospitals in Taiwan collectively, creating a zero-sum game in which the players cannot effectively police one another. Reimbursement contracts are negotiated with health care providers on a fee-for-service basis with a uniform pay schedule. A deflation mechanism engages once a service quota is reached, resulting in declining reimbursement rates. Under the global budget payment system, the NHI Medical Expenditure Negotiation Committee convenes and negotiates overall caps on total medical payments based on a set of equations and indicators prior to the beginning of a fiscal year. Along with the implementation of global budgets, the NHI took several measures to control the demand for selected types of health care, such as increasing copayments for high users of drugs and outpatient services. The global budget payment system with these measures has been successful in containing the annual growth in the health insurance system's expenditures with spending growth leveling out at below 5% a year since it was fully implemented in July 2002. |
| 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. |