1 / 16

Towards a single “no balance billing” payment system

Towards a single “no balance billing” payment system. Rajesh Patel Jhb June 2007. BHF board mandate. Affordability Quality of care …. Benefit History. 2001 Regulated minimum benefit entitlement At cost No co-pay…. Remunerations. Unbundling of RAMS Competition Commissioner actions

holmes-king
Download Presentation

Towards a single “no balance billing” payment system

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Towards a single “no balance billing” payment system Rajesh Patel Jhb June 2007

  2. BHF board mandate • Affordability • Quality of care • …

  3. Benefit History • 2001 • Regulated minimum benefit entitlement • At cost • No co-pay….

  4. Remunerations • Unbundling of RAMS • Competition Commissioner actions • HPCSA ethical fees • Surgicom; Spesnet and its actions • Cost escalations • Funders as price takers

  5. Regulated SOB Negotiated SOB Reference price ???? SAMA; SADA rate HPCSA ethical fees Tariff history

  6. Regulated Negotiated RAP Reference

  7. Considerations • Statutory provision for a no balance billing fee • Schemes can negotiate a lower fee

  8. Remuneration determination Models • SA model • Belgium model • Australian model • Hybrid model

  9. Advantages of statutory maximum fee • Affordability • Expansion of minimum mandatory benefit • Rationalisation of plans • Can include assessment of healthcare needs

  10. Belgium model • Bargaining council model • If no agreement, Minister decides • 7 year – no Minister’s intervention • Advantage • Agreed fee by all parties • Disadvantage • Inefficiency may be entrenched

  11. Australian model Coding centre Federal Government MBS fees Fees centre Disadvantage: coding development for National Health benefits

  12. Hybrid model Sufficiently representative provider group No Certification criteria met? Yes Centralised bargaining process Consideration for Certification by MOH Ministerial determination Publication in Gazette of no balance-billing tariffs Yes Sufficiently representative funder group Appeal process (limited to subsequent process) Agreement? ICU No

  13. Certification criteria and statutory powers • Statutory “TOR” • Include budget impact, Inflation… • Representivity • Powers of the Minister • …

  14. Timelines • Code structure settlement • Price settlement • Ministerial determination • Consider • Technology assessment • REF time lines

  15. Questions?

More Related