The current alternative to the fee-for-services is the capitation arrangement. The physicians believe that the pay-for-performance is controlling how that he or she conducts the practice, but it will eliminate many expensive and unnecessary procedures (Shi & Singh, 2012).The pay-for-performance in the United States healthcare industry comes after the capitation and managed care and if managed correctly will become an asset and if not it will become a major blunder. The goal of pay-for-performance is to change patient behavior and doctors and hospitals with a rewards systems or punishment. A pay-for-performance bonus for doctors can be an increase for the general fee-for-service hospitals can receive an extra in the form of the diagnosis group-based payment (Shi & Singh,
The provider organizations are able to plan on more financially stable and long-term (Williams & Torrens). Patient benefits because there are usually small deductibles, if any, and low or no copayments for each class of service (Williams & Torrens). A con would be that HMO depends on an individual choosing to sign up with one particular group of physicians (Williams & Torrens). Point-of-Service (POS) combines elements of both HMOs and PPOs (this would be the benefit). A con of this plan would be that if the member chooses to receive care outside of the HMO provider group, then the beneficiary is exposed to higher cost sharing in the form of deductibles and copayments/coinsurance (Williams &
It would make insurance more affordable and making tax cuts for the middle class. It would reduce the premiums for millions of people that can’t afford coverage. It sets up a competitive health care markets system to Americans. They would start greater accountability on the health care to keep the premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care. They would end the discrimination of Americans with pre-existing conditions.
I believe that this is a great way to help reduce healthcare cost, however, I do believe that there should be verbiage that allowed for higher pay outs dependent on the situation. Should a patient be able to sue for millions of dollars for a mistake that did not lead to a significant event or death? I do not believe that this should be allowed and should be capped. If the negligence leads to death or significant injury (i.e. laterality issue much like amputation of the incorrect limb); I believe that this does deserve to be compensated accordingly and not be capped.
I would first reduce the staff of the agency to save money. The hospital could save money with paying less people hourly wages. Unfortunately, if the hospital gets too busy, they could be
So the return to the company will be lower as well. This is the better chose of the two plans with the health condition of the employees. The health plan is going to cost more but you pay for better services. It is like the saying “you pay for what you get”, such as if you pay a lower premium than you will have certain network of hospitals, physicians, and treatment centers that may not have the same results of paying more money and receiving better service. The Castor Enhanced plan can be overhaul to fit the need of the employees.
My theory also is that eventually people will start bidding on artificial organs and the richer people will have say over a family that doesn't have a lot of money. If doctors wanted to replace original organs with artificial ones, it would take a lot of perfecting and obligating a clean bill of health for the patient. Who, if anyone, should be a prime candidate for these types of artificial/synthetic replacements? Do you feel that anyone should have access to them? Even a life-long smoker or alcoholic who knowingly subjected themselves to harmful substances?
The significance of a high-deductible health plan is that it covers catastrophic losses, while the savings account pays out-of-pocket, non-covered or medical expenses. Therefore, consumers will be less inclined to use money for minor medical issues and make informed choices, which will help keep cost down. HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT: Health reimbursement accounts (HRAs) are plans that reimburse employees for qualified medical expenses, which are usually funded by the employer. A health reimbursement account reimburses you for qualified medical expenses up to an account balance. ( Valerius et al, 2014).
Having a third of our population without healthcare may sound bad; however, some would argue that we are sticking to the roots of our founding fathers who wanted the power to be in the people. They wanted less government control and more individual responsibility to make it or break it. When referring to the idea of “make it or break it”, in this sense, it refers to whether or not the people were successful enough to pay for healthcare or whether they were less fortunate and were not successful enough to pay for health care. This is what makes America so great, while it does create a third of the population to have no healthcare, it generates brilliant thinkers and entrepreneurs that makes our great society what it has become today. Having a third of the population without healthcare allows hard working Americans that own businesses, or who have worked hard to make the amount of money they have, to be taxed fairly and not to have to pay higher taxes for other Americans who were less fortunate and could not afford healthcare.
Patient’s saves energy cost since it reduces the time spent in the waiting room or on the phone trying to reach the doctor. Reduces psychic cost since it reduces the stress of scheduling an appointment and waiting for the services. In the case of monetary cost, customers may see the services as an expensive options but at the same time they can save time and energy and focus on getting well quicker so for many this advantage might be worth more than what they are actually paying dollars wise. 2. Based on the 10 factors that influence price sensitivity described in the text, select 5 of these factors and discuss weather patient demand for health care is elastic or inelastic?