Bundled Payment vs. Fee-for-Service: Impact of Payment Scheme on Performance

Bundled Payment vs. Fee-for-Service: Impact of Payment Scheme on Performance

Healthcare reimbursements in the US have been traditionally based upon a fee-for-service (FFS) scheme, providing incentives for high volume of care, rather than efficient care. The new healthcare legislation tests new payment models that remove such incentives, such as the bundled payment (BP) system. We consider a population of patients (beneficiaries). The provider may reject patients based o...

Phasing out fee-for-service payment.

In March 2012, the Society of General Internal Medicine convened the National Commission on Physician Payment Reform to recommend forms of payment that would maximize good clinical outcomes, enhance patient and physician satisfaction and autonomy, and provide cost-effective care. The formation of the commission was spurred by the recognition that the level of spending on health care in the Unit...

In Defense of Regulated Fee-for-Service Payment: A Response to Recent Commentaries

The Impact of Reimbursement Policy on Patient Welfare, Readmission Rate and Waiting Time in a Public Healthcare System: Fee-for-Service vs. Bundled Payment

This paper examines the impact of two reimbursement schemes on patient welfare, readmission rate, and waiting time in a three tiered public healthcare system comprising (a) a public funder who decides on the reimbursement rate to maximize patient welfare, (b) a public healthcare provider (HCP) who decides on the service rate (which affects readmission rate and operating cost), and (c) a pool of...

Information Technology for Bundled Payment

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of The MITRE Corporation and should not be construed as official government position, policy, or decision unless so designated by other documentation.