Landscape
Patients: Patients are the largest population interested in the change from fee-for-service to a pay-for-performance system. On a fee-for-service system physicians are paid based on how many and what services they provide (Five, 2011). This FFS system stands largely on the amount of services provided and the number of patients requiring services. If quantity is favored over quality, physicians and facilities are less likely to provide quality care or preventative measures when they’re paid more for reoccurring services, longer hospital stays and more rehabilitation time (Difference, 2013). Subsequently, this costs patients more money, longer stays, more physician visits, and further discomfort. Alternatively, with a pay-for-performance
…show more content…
Again, like physicians, on a fee-for-service system, hospitals and facilities make more of a profit with the number of patients seen and services given. Currently, the payment amount is typically discussed between insurers, providers and other payers, based on defined or administered rates using a formula or funding levels and controlled by guidelines and rules defining what can be billed (Five, 2011). However, with a pay-for-performance system, physicians will be held accountable for the care provided. As explained by Health Policy Briefs, Medicare has already started refusing payment to physicians and medical facilities if patients have acquired a preventable illness or condition during their hospital stay. This furthers the push to provide quality care and prevent hospital or facility acquired illnesses, since it now results in a financial deficit when a patient receives poor quality …show more content…
At some point in everyone’s life they or a family member will have to visit a physician regardless of whether it’s for a sinus infection, a necessary surgery, if they’re insured or not. Everyone will at some point need medical attention, thus utilizing the money taken out of the publics’ paycheck being put towards healthcare spending. According to Fleming, “By 2020, healthcare spending is projected to be 19.8 percent of GDP, nearly one-fifth of economic output, increasing from 17.6 percent in 2010.” Since, Medicaid and Medicare are funded by Federal and State taxes (Medicare, 2015) with a fee-for-service system; the public will continue to pay for services provided. However, with a pay-for-performance system, providers will be required to make changes within their area of care to ensure that quality is administered and at a lower cost (Better Care, 2015). This means hospitals and facilities will pay for a patients stay if they receive less than quality care, as well as altering how physicians treat their patients. The pay for performance model guarantees the general public will be paying less for healthcare overall, receiving better care the first time they see a physician and will be given quality
Payers will cover more procedures, reject less, pay faster, and reimburse more
Increasing costs all around the globe due to economic downfalls is making this issue even more challenging. It is vital that we have some focus on revenue, but we can’t lose focus on the costs of running a business. In health care this can be very challenging because of all the changes involved with the government, in laws regarding health care reform. “Understanding the total costs of services will allow the redeployment of resources which provide a higher payback, or will facilitate the elimination of those resources altogether.” (Hughes, 2011).
This question represents at least half of the medical community, and makes people question the intended and unintended consequences in a profit - driven health care system, the supposition of quality health today, and whether they
Since CMS implemented the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (now known as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA), there have been several changes in participation sanctions, reporting mechanisms and eligibility for incentives and bonuses. During the first two years, the program was technically a temporary, renewable initiative that sought to improve the quality of both delivery and coordination of care. The initiative became permanent when the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA, 2008) was enacted. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) believes the sanction-based initiative will empower consumers and providers to make better informed decisions
Comparison of the Transformational Model and Accountable Care Organizations Tiresia Kliegl National University HCA 402 Healthcare Administration COMPARISON OF THE TRANSFORMATIONAL MODEL 2 Abstract Healthcare organizations are not only going through technological changes but changes in management practices as well. These changes will challenge healthcare organizations practices, policies, and patient attitude. Comparing the transformational model (TM) with accountable care organizations (ACO’s), this paper will explore how each model improves quality of care, access to care, and reduce cost while discussing their differences. The transformational model focuses on healthcare establishments becoming “learning organizations (Sollecito & Johnson,
This implies patients and their families should pay for convenience, travel costs, parking, day care and loss of
“Healthcare Reform 101,” written by Rick Panning (2014), is a wonderful article that describes, in an easy-to-understand language, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law March 23, 2010. The main goal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was to provide affordable, quality healthcare to Americans while simultaneously reducing some of the country’s economic problems. Two areas will be covered throughout this paper. The first section will include a summary of the major points and highlights of Panning’s (2014) article, including an introduction to the ACA, goals of the signed legislation, provided coverage, and downfalls of the current healthcare system. The second part will be comprised of a professional
As federal regulators require physicians to do more, they will actually get paid less. As the situation worsens, older doctors will retire and younger doctors will look to switch careers. This will come at a time when the demand for physician services will be higher than ever. Ultimately the consequences of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will translate into restricted access and inferior quality of care. No matter how you look at it, this legislation is terrible for physicians; however, it is always the patient that suffers the most.”
“The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot is about an African American woman who had her cells taken without any consent from her or her family to benefit the medical and science field. The Lacks family had no idea about Henrietta’s cells were alive and tested on for all kind of experiments. Henrietta’s case and other similar cases brought up an issue of who has the ownership of the tissue: the patient or the researcher? This issue became serious when researchers and scientists started making profits and having it patented. The argument against giving people legal ownership of their tissues is that everyone benefits from the research.
According to Garment (2013), “The American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates that the U.S. will face a physician shortage of over 90,000 physicians by 2020; a figure that’s expected to reach over 130,000 by 2025” (p.4). The increasing amount of money required for health care services from a physician is a driving force to pursue alternative ways of receiving primary care. According to The American Association of Nurse Practitioners (2013), “NPs in a physician practice potentially decreased the cost of patient visits by as much as one third, particularly when seeing patients in an independent, rather than complementary, manner” (p. 2). NPs are maintaining the standard of care and for a lesser amount for patients to pay. Mid-level practitioners are completing the same amount of work and improving the quality of care.
The real debate is how can we accomplish the goal of universal healthcare in the most affordable and sustainable way. The United States is evaluated as a wealthy country, yet there are more penurious countries who provide health maintenance, paid through higher taxes. “In the United Kingdom and other European countries, payroll taxes average 37% - much higher than the 15.3% payroll taxes paid by the average US worker” (Gregory). With this data, the only reform would be to end the private health insurance companies of dominant health services, and incorporate a single payer system. Conversely, it is factual that taxes will rise, but the implementation of universal healthcare will better the health of American citizens.
Without proper reimbursement it is practically impossible for providers to render healthcare services to the patient
A hospital’s primary goal should be to provide quality medical care to the patients so that they can be as healthy as possible. A possible way to be able to measure the quality of care a hospital is giving would be to look at their readmission numbers. If a patient is readmitted into a hospital in a short period of time after being discharged, then it is very likely that the hospital did not fully address the patients’ health needs during the initial stay. In an effort to improve the quality of service that hospitals are giving, the Medicare 30-day readmission rule was established to help by incentivizing hospitals to provide better quality care for its patients or be financially penalized.
Name: Professor: Class: Date: How Value Based Healthcare Blends Strategic Planning, Healthcare Marketing and Quality and Strategy in Health Care Marketing Value Based Healthcare The concept of value-based healthcare refers to the restructuring of the various global healthcare systems with the fundamental goal of fostering increased value for the patients (Moriates, Arora, & Shah 5).
But we already pay for healthcare in our taxes collectively and to insurance companies individually, and it's costing us dearly. We hear stories every day now about how someone died because they couldn't afford their medication or treatment. Of people suffering for years because they couldn't afford to see a doctor. We see the wasteland of suffering that our current system has given us, and we can't let the fear of change keep us from doing better, for all of our sakes.