We need a way to pay for health care that promotes the provision of greater value to patients. Fee-for-service tends to encourage an overpopulation of more expensive types of care, including operations, often without real needs. This is especially true when the patient is fully covered by health insurance and can therefore pay for the benefit better than the person without insurance. Some insurance schemes require the user`s participation in the supplement or in the user fees or charges. This is often encouraged by the idea that it prevents the consumer from questioning unnecessary care and helping to cover costs, while opponents of Droit respond that user charges disproportionately affect the poorest sector of a population and discourage prevention. The method of payment of physicians has an important influence on how medical services are used. Empirical evidence suggests that fee-for-service promotes excessive use of the system, including unnecessary surgical procedures, while paid services are often criticized for decreased identification with patients and possibly for underserved services. Mixed payment systems are increasingly forming, with capita being a predominant method. Because the risk factors are so complex at the population level, capital health systems are encouraged to use as many comorbidities as possible in order to increase their incomes and profitability. A whole segment of healthcare providers has emerged to help providers «upcodize» patients into higher-risk categories. Such a risk adjustment game became and remains a problem for the first time in the era of managed care capitation in the 1990s.
Health insurance programs, including Medicare, perpend providers in one of two ways: service fees or predetermined payments per person. Most people are used to a paid plan used by most health programs, but other options are available. Each method has advantages and disadvantages for both providers and patients. As competition intensifies for market share, the diverse university health system can take several additional steps. He can refer routine cases to community hospitals and perform more outpatient procedures. It can take care of home care and dedicate resources to community-based population health initiatives. And clinical affiliations can go beyond zip code: international partnerships represent a growing opportunity for some CHAs. Initially, pooled payments may cover less than the entire care cycle, focus on simpler patient groups with a particular disease, and require mechanisms to assess grey areas. This is already the case. With experience, bulk payments become more comprehensive and inclusive. And a large body of evidence shows that the effort to understand comprehensive cycles of care and transition to multidisciplinary care is worth it.