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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Chile: National Health Fund (FONASA) |
|
FONASA transfers money to public health care providers through fee-for-service mechanisms for certain services and groups of services that are assigned a fixed value. The remainder of resources for health care services and facility maintenance in the public sector is transferred based on historical budgets, which tend to be antiquated and therefore undervalued. In terms of transfer mechanisms, FONASA funds are not transferred directly to the individual health care providers. Read full sectionFONASA transfers money to public health care providers through fee-for-service mechanisms for certain services and groups of services that are assigned a fixed value. The remainder of resources for health care services and facility maintenance in the public sector is transferred based on historical budgets, which tend to be antiquated and therefore undervalued. In terms of transfer mechanisms, FONASA funds are not transferred directly to the individual health care providers. Rather, funds are transferred to the regional health entity (under the purview of the MOH) for the geographical region where the provider is located. The regional health entity pools the funds for all public health care providers in the area and then is charged with determining the budget of each provider. FONASA also transfers funds prospectively to the regional health entities for primary care facilities through capitation mechanisms. These funds are based on a region’s health care needs and its disease burden. FONASA and the ISAPREs transfer funds to private providers on a retrospective fee-for-service basis. Private providers always receive funds through fee-for-service mechanisms, and they have no ceiling on income, regardless of whether the source of the funds is FONASA or an ISAPRE. National Health Fund (FONASA)Provider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service, Capitation FONASA transfers money to public health care providers through fee-for-service mechanisms for certain services and groups of services that are assigned a fixed value. The remainder of resources for health care services and facility maintenance in the public sector is transferred based on historical budgets, which tend to be antiquated and therefore undervalued. In terms of transfer mechanisms, FONASA funds are not transferred directly to the individual health care providers. Rather, funds are transferred to the regional health entity (under the purview of the MOH) for the geographical region where the provider is located. The regional health entity pools the funds for all public health care providers in the area and then is charged with determining the budget of each provider. FONASA also transfers funds prospectively to the regional health entities for primary care facilities through capitation mechanisms. These funds are based on a region’s health care needs and its disease burden. FONASA and the ISAPREs transfer funds to private providers on a retrospective fee-for-service basis. Private providers always receive funds through fee-for-service mechanisms, and they have no ceiling on income, regardless of whether the source of the funds is FONASA or an ISAPRE. |
| 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. |
| Philippines: PhilHealth |
|
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. Read full sectionProvider 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. PhilHealthProvider payment mechanisms Provider Payment Mechanisms: Fee-for-service, Capitation 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. |