Datawatch: Fee-for-service, while much maligned, remains the dominant payment method for physician visits

Health Affairs

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 411-414

  Zuvekas, Samuel H ^a   Cohen, Joel W ^a  

^a AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIAC SURGEON; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; EMERGENCY CARE; FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEART SURGERY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LAW SUIT; MANDATORY REPORTING; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT REFERRAL; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SURGICAL MORTALITY; SURVIVAL RATE; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; AMBULATORY CARE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; ECONOMICS; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEMALE; HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL FEE; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; REIMBURSEMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEE-FOR-SERVICE PLANS; FEMALE; HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS; HUMANS; MALE; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; OFFICE VISITS; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84960434224     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1291     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Ginsburg PB. Fee-for-service will remain a feature of major payment reforms, requiring more changes in Medicare physician payment. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31(9):1977-83.
2. Pham HH, Ginsburg PB. Unhealthy trends: the future of physician services. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26(6):1586-98.
3. Mechanic RE, Altman SH. Payment reform options: episode payment is a good place to start. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009; 28(2):w262-w271. DOI10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.w262.
4. Berenson RA, Rich EC. US approaches to physician payment: the deconstruction of primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 25(6):613-8.
5. Goldsmith J. Analyzing shifts in economic risks to providers in proposed payment and delivery system reforms. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29(7):1299-304.
6. Zuvekas SH, Cohen JW. Paying physicians by capitation: is the past now prologue? Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(9):1661-6.
7. Stagnitti MN, Beauregard K, Solis A. Design, methods, and field results of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Medical Provider Component (MEPS MPC)-2006 calendar year data [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008 Nov [cited 2016 Jan 13]. (MEPS Methodology Report No. 23). Available from: http://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/mr23/mr23.shtml
8. To access the Appendix, click on the Appendix link in the box to the right of the article online.
9. Strunk BC, Reschovsky JD. Kinder and gentler: physicians and managed care, 1997-2001 [Internet]. Washington (DC): Center for Studying Health System Change; 2002 Nov [cited 2016 Jan 21]. (Tracking Report No. 5). Available from: http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/486/
10. American Medical Association. Physician socioeconomic statistics, 2003 edition. Chicago (IL): AMA Press; 2003.
11. Differences in the number of people sampled in the MEPS Household Component each year and sampling rates for the follow-up provider surveys primarily explain the variation over time. Data from 2009 were omitted altogether because of incomplete follow-up with some capitated providers in that year.
12. MEPS did not ask consistently about enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans during the period 1996-2013, which precluded subanalyses of the population of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare HMOs.
13. We used the state-specific weights available for the twenty-nine largest states, making additional adjustments for differential sampling and nonresponse in the MEPS physician survey. For additional details, see Sommers JP. Producing state estimates with the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Household Component [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005 Dec [cited 2016 Jan 13]. (MEPS Methodology Report No. 16). Available from: http://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/mr16/mr16.shtml
14. National Commission on Physician Payment Reform. Report of the National Commission on Physician Payment Reform [Internet]. Washington (DC): The Commission; 2013 Mar [cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available for download from: http://physicianpaymentcommission.org/report/
15. Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals-HHS efforts to improve U.S. health care. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(10):897.
16. Frakt AB, Mayes R. Beyond capitation: how new payment experiments seek to find the "sweet spot" in the amount of risk providers and payers bear. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31(9);1951-8.
17. CMS.gov. Pioneer ACO model [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; [last updated 2016 Jan 11; cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Pioneer-ACO-Model/
18. L&M Policy Research. Evaluation of CMMI Accountable Care Organization Initiatives: Pioneer ACO evaluation findings from performance years one and two [Internet]. Washington (DC): L&M Policy Research; 2015 Mar 10 [cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from: http://innovation .cms.gov/Files/reports/Pioneer ACOEvalRpt2.pdf