Dataset Information

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19: A comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries

ABSTRACT: Provider payment mechanisms were adjusted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our objective was to review adjustments for hospitals and healthcare professionals across 20 countries. We developed an analytical framework distinguishing between payment adjustments compensating income loss and those covering extra costs related to COVID-19. Information was extracted from the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) and classified according to the framework. We found that income loss was not a problem in countries where professionals were paid by salary or capitation and hospitals received global budgets. In countries where payment was based on activity, income loss was compensated through budgets and higher fees. New FFS payments were introduced to incentivize remote services. Payments for COVID-19 related costs included new fees for out- and inpatient services but also new PD and DRG tariffs for hospitals. Budgets covered the costs of adjusting wards, creating new (ICU) beds, and hiring staff. We conclude that public payers assumed most of the COVID-19-related financial risk. In view of future pandemics policymakers should work to increase resilience of payment systems by: (1) having systems in place to rapidly adjust payment systems; (2) being aware of the economic incentives created by these adjustments such as cost-containment or increasing the number of patients or services, that can result in unintended consequences such as risk selection or overprovision of care; and (3) periodically evaluating the effects of payment adjustments on access and quality of care.

SUBMITTER: Waitzberg R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8492384 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesCommunity-based health insurance (CBI) is a common mechanism to generate financial resources for health care in developing countries. We review for the first time provider payment methods used in CBI in developing countries and their impact on CBI performance.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature on provider payment methods used by CBI in developing countries published up to January 2010.ResultsInformation on provider payment was available for a total of 32 CBI schemes in 34 reviewed publications: 17 schemes in South Asia, 10 in sub-Saharan Africa, 4 in East Asia and 1 in Latin America. Various types of provider payment were applied by the CBI schemes: 17 used fee-for-service, 12 used salaries, 9 applied a coverage ceiling, 7 used capitation and 6 applied a co-insurance. The evidence suggests that provider payment impacts CBI performance through provider participation and support for CBI, population enrolment and patient satisfaction with CBI, quantity and quality of services provided and provider and patient retention. Lack of provider participation in designing and choosing a CBI payment method can lead to reduced provider support for the scheme.ConclusionCBI schemes in developing countries have used a wide range of provider payment methods. The existing evidence suggests that payment methods are a key determinant of CBI performance and sustainability, but the strength of this evidence is limited since it is largely based on observational studies rather than on trials or on quasi-experimental research. According to the evidence, provider payment can affect provider participation, satisfaction and retention in CBI; the quantity and quality of services provided to CBI patients; patient demand of CBI services; and population enrollment, risk pooling and financial sustainability of CBI. CBI schemes should carefully consider how their current payment methods influence their performance, how changes in the methods could improve performance, and how such effects could be assessed with scientific rigour to increase the strength of evidence on this topic.

Project description:IntroductionExperts continue to debate how to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates. Some experts advocate for financial incentives. Others argue that financial incentives, especially large ones, will have counterproductive psychological effects, reducing the percent of people who want to vaccinate. Among a racially and ethnically diverse U.S. sample of lower income adults, for whom vaccine uptake has lagged compared with higher income adults, we empirically examine such claims about relatively large and small guaranteed cash payments.MethodsIn 2021, we conducted a randomized, controlled experiment among U.S. residents with incomes below $80,000 who reported being unvaccinated against COVID-19. Study participants were randomized to one of four study arms. In two arms, respondents first learned about a policy proposal to pay $1,000 or $200 to those who received COVID-19 vaccination and were then asked if, given that policy, they would want to vaccinate. In the two other arms, respondents received either an educational message about this vaccine or received no vaccine information and were then asked if they wanted to vaccinate for COVID-19. The primary analyses estimated and compared the overall percentage in each study arm that reported wanting to vaccinate for COVID-19. In other analyses, we estimated and compared these percentages for subgroups of interest, including gender, race/ethnicity, and education.Main resultsAmong 2,290 unvaccinated adults, 79.7% (95%CI, 76.4-83.0%) of those who learned about the proposed $1,000 payment wanted to get vaccinated, compared with 58.9% (95%CI, 54.8-63.0%) in the control condition without vaccine information, a difference of 20 percentage points. Among those who learned of the proposed $200 payment, 74.8% (95% CI, 71.3-78.4%) wanted to vaccinate. Among those who learned only about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, 68.9% (95% CI, 65.1-72.7%) wanted to vaccinate. Findings were consistent across various subgroups.DiscussionDespite several study limitations, the results do not support concerns that the financial incentive policies aimed to increase COVID-19 vaccination would have counterproductive effects. Instead, those who learned about a policy with a large or small financial incentive were more likely than those in the control condition to report that they would want to vaccinate. The positive effects extended to subgroups that have been less likely to vaccinate, including younger adults, those with less education, and racial and ethnic minorities. Financial incentives of $1,000 performed similarly to those offering only $200.

Dataset Information

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19: A comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets