UHC Forward: Towards Universal Health Coverage

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.

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.

Provider payment methods differ based on the type of care delivered. Fee-for-service reimbursements are used for inpatient care, most day surgeries, and ambulatory procedures, while primary care providers are reimbursed based on a capitation system. For TB-DOTS treatment, malaria care, deliveries, surgical contraception, and cataract surgeries, a case-based payment methodology is utilized.

There is no formal system that sets fixed deductibles or co-payments for beneficiaries, but health care providers are allowed to “balance bill”, charging patients the balance between what PhilHealth pays and the total cost of care. This is atypical of most government health programs around the world and can lead to abuse by providers (e.g., overcharging) and thus limited access for the poorest. At the same time, balance billing allows providers additional cost recovery in the case that the reimbursement for services does not cover their cost.

Quality: PhilHealth currently leverages internally developed quality standards. A new set of standards called the “PhilHealth Benchbook” was implemented starting January 1, 2010. The Benchbook was developed by PhilHealth with the assistance of various international health partners and several rounds of consultations with health providers.

The previous and new quality standards are overseen by PhilHealth. The new quality standards focus on the following domains of quality of care: patient rights and organizational ethic, patient care, leadership and management, human resource management, information management, safe practice and environment, and mechanisms of improving performance. With the implementation of the new standards this year, hospitals can now be accredited for up to 3 years compared with the previous practice of annual accreditation. PhilHealth has accreditation staff who physically check and verify compliance. PhilHealth has also set peer review committees essentially composed of health care providers who review specific cases.

PhilHealth has been planning to implement quality-based purchasing but has not executed on this plan as of December 2009.

Performance-based Payment: PhilHealth has been developing incentive payments but this work has been focused on payment to health care professionals and not for health facilities. Doctors are usually independent free agents who ‘practice’ in hospitals. Even government physicians who are salaried are allowed to engage in private practice. Thus, PhilHealth payments are split for health professionals and health facilities and efforts to implement case payments essentially focus on bundling the payment for the health facilities.

Among PhilHealth’s work in incentive-based payments is a scheme that has been piloted in 30 local government hospitals since 2002 but has not been scaled up. The scheme is called the Quality Improvement Demonstration Study (QIDS). It utilizes clinical vignettes to measure quality of care. If a hospital passes a set quality of care index score, the payment for physicians is increased. Clinical vignettes focus on the management of illnesses of children less than six years of age.

Another incentive scheme is increased payment for health professionals practicing in areas where there is a lack of doctors.

Claims Processing: The claims processing procedure is still a manual operation. Electronic claims submissions have long been planned but have not been implemented. Hospitals or members fill out claims forms that are then submitted to PhilHealth within 90 days from hospital or health facility discharge. Two forms are usually submitted: First, a form that documents who the member is and premiums paid; and second, a form that details the service provided. Claims are submitted to 17 regional claims processing centers. These centers initially review if the claims are eligible. Review is inputted manually with a number of data encoded into the claims processing information system. Once the claim is approved for payment, checks are prepared for the signature of regional heads. Electronic reimbursements have been planned but have not yet been implemented.

The interventions included in the CAUSES are paid for by capitation. Meanwhile, the interventions carried out under the FPGC are paid for on a per-case basis. The payment mechanism for contracts with private providers is vague. The reform stated that health services should be provided by state health secretariats in accordance with the state of residence of the insured family or by other public health institutions that have contracted with the state health secretariats. After the passage of the law, however, the executive branch issued a by-law that introduced the option of contracting with the private sector. The problem with this by-law is that it does not specify the form that payments to private sector will take. Thus, such payments take place on an ad-hoc, non-systematic basis.