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. |
