Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right: Flaws in Alternatives to Fee-for-Service Payment Plans Do Not Mean Fee-for-Service Is a Good Solution to Rising Prices; Comment on “Fee-for-Service Payment - An Evil Practice That Must Be Stamped Out?”
Sociology Department, School of Medicine, Leonard Davis Institute (Wharton), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Professor Naoki Ikegami’s “Fee-for-service payment – an evil practice that must be stamped out” summarizes many of the failings of alternatives to fee-for-service (FFS) payment systems. His article also offers several suggestions for improving FFS systems. However, even powerful arguments against many of the alternatives to FFS, does not make a convincing argument for FFS systems. In addition, there are significant misunderstandings in Professor Ikegami’s presentation of and use of United States payment methods, the role of private vs. public insurance systems, and the increasing role of “accountable care organizations.”
US Government Accountability Office. Medicaid payment: comparisons of selected services under fee-for service, managed care, and private insurance. http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/664782.pdf. Accessed July, 2014.
Diane R. Rittenhouse DR, Shortell SM, Fisher ES Primary care and accountable care — two essential elements of delivery-system reform. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2301-2303. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0909327
Koppel R, Lehmann CU. Implications of an emerging EHR monoculture for hospitals and healthcare systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(2):465-471. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-003023
Caldwell N, Srebotnjak T, Wang T, Hsia R. “How much will i get charged for this?” Patient charges for top ten diagnoses in the emergency department. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55491. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055491