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.
|
| Colombia: General System of Social Security in Health |
|
EPSs and EPSSs are free to establish payment levels and payment mechanisms for services that they purchase from providers. Both entities have used the fee schedules, adjusted for inflation, developed by the pre-reform public health plans as ceilings for price negotiations. As of 2008, provider associations were forcefully seeking the establishment of price floors by the MPS. Read full sectionEPSs and EPSSs are free to establish payment levels and payment mechanisms for services that they purchase from providers. Both entities have used the fee schedules, adjusted for inflation, developed by the pre-reform public health plans as ceilings for price negotiations. As of 2008, provider associations were forcefully seeking the establishment of price floors by the MPS. There are two payment mechanisms common to both EPSs and EPSSs. In general, preventive and primary care services are contracted on a capitation basis. Most specialist and hospital care, however, is paid for either on a fee-for-service basis or by a services package. The CR and SR enrollees must also pay copayments, which vary according to an individual’s income. CR copayments are charged according to salary income. Enrollees with salaries lower than 2 minimum monthly salaries (mms) have a maximum copayment of USD46.70 annually. The maximum copayment for enrollees with incomes in the range of 2-5 mms is USD 195.20 annually. Finally, enrollees with incomes greater than 5 mms have a maximum copayment of USD390.30 annually. SR copayments are set according to SISBEN category. The poorest enrollees, who are classified in category 1, pay co copayments. On the opposite end of the scale, enrollees classified in category 3 pay 10% of the service value. General System of Social Security in HealthProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service, Capitation EPSs and EPSSs are free to establish payment levels and payment mechanisms for services that they purchase from providers. Both entities have used the fee schedules, adjusted for inflation, developed by the pre-reform public health plans as ceilings for price negotiations. As of 2008, provider associations were forcefully seeking the establishment of price floors by the MPS. There are two payment mechanisms common to both EPSs and EPSSs. In general, preventive and primary care services are contracted on a capitation basis. Most specialist and hospital care, however, is paid for either on a fee-for-service basis or by a services package. The CR and SR enrollees must also pay copayments, which vary according to an individual’s income. CR copayments are charged according to salary income. Enrollees with salaries lower than 2 minimum monthly salaries (mms) have a maximum copayment of USD46.70 annually. The maximum copayment for enrollees with incomes in the range of 2-5 mms is USD 195.20 annually. Finally, enrollees with incomes greater than 5 mms have a maximum copayment of USD390.30 annually. SR copayments are set according to SISBEN category. The poorest enrollees, who are classified in category 1, pay co copayments. On the opposite end of the scale, enrollees classified in category 3 pay 10% of the service value. |
| Mali: Mutuelles |
|
In Mali, the provider payment system for all three systems is fee-for-service. The Mutuelles sign individual agreements with the care providers and reimburse them according to the payment rates under a fee-for-service system. Services are paid for directly by the CANAM and the ANAM to the providers by submitting invoices based on the national pricing system and health care services coverage rates (minus the copayment). A medical control is also included. Read full sectionIn Mali, the provider payment system for all three systems is fee-for-service. The Mutuelles sign individual agreements with the care providers and reimburse them according to the payment rates under a fee-for-service system. Services are paid for directly by the CANAM and the ANAM to the providers by submitting invoices based on the national pricing system and health care services coverage rates (minus the copayment). A medical control is also included. For the AMO and RAMED, the health institutions, dispensing pharmacies, drug warehouses, and the laboratories approved by the Ministry of Health may sign contracts with the Government Management Agency, the National Health Insurance Fund (CANAM) for the AMO, and the National Medical Assistance Agency (ANAM) for RAMED. Although an accreditation system is planned in Mali, at startup time for the AMO and RAMED, all public and community facilities were temporarily accredited until the system became operational. MutuellesProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service In Mali, the provider payment system for all three systems is fee-for-service. The Mutuelles sign individual agreements with the care providers and reimburse them according to the payment rates under a fee-for-service system. Services are paid for directly by the CANAM and the ANAM to the providers by submitting invoices based on the national pricing system and health care services coverage rates (minus the copayment). A medical control is also included. For the AMO and RAMED, the health institutions, dispensing pharmacies, drug warehouses, and the laboratories approved by the Ministry of Health may sign contracts with the Government Management Agency, the National Health Insurance Fund (CANAM) for the AMO, and the National Medical Assistance Agency (ANAM) for RAMED. Although an accreditation system is planned in Mali, at startup time for the AMO and RAMED, all public and community facilities were temporarily accredited until the system became operational. |
| 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. |
| Thailand: Universal Coverage Scheme |
|
UCS uses capitation as the main provider payment mechanism. Initially, providers were given the option of receiving reimbursements based on either total capitation or capitation for outpatient services and DRG for inpatient services at the provincial level. However, due to the disincentive of paying providers for high-cost care and delays in case referrals, UCS began using a single payment system in 2003. Read full sectionUCS uses capitation as the main provider payment mechanism. Initially, providers were given the option of receiving reimbursements based on either total capitation or capitation for outpatient services and DRG for inpatient services at the provincial level. However, due to the disincentive of paying providers for high-cost care and delays in case referrals, UCS began using a single payment system in 2003. The current payment mechanism for UCS is a mixed system of risk-adjusted capitation for primary care, a DRG-based capped global budget, and fixed rate fees for some services. It should be noted that health promotion and prevention services for all Thai citizens are paid by the UCS. Universal Coverage SchemeProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Capitation UCS uses capitation as the main provider payment mechanism. Initially, providers were given the option of receiving reimbursements based on either total capitation or capitation for outpatient services and DRG for inpatient services at the provincial level. However, due to the disincentive of paying providers for high-cost care and delays in case referrals, UCS began using a single payment system in 2003. The current payment mechanism for UCS is a mixed system of risk-adjusted capitation for primary care, a DRG-based capped global budget, and fixed rate fees for some services. It should be noted that health promotion and prevention services for all Thai citizens are paid by the UCS. |
