scholarly journals Finding a Balance on Balance Billing

2017 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. A15-A18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Berger
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Gordon I. Herz

This chapter describes “managed care” insurance systems and practices that were created to manage healthcare costs. Effects on private mental health practice are identified, such as decreases in reimbursement, documentation requirements, treatment reviews, and other intrusions into clinician–client privacy and decision making. Potential advantages of participation are also identified. Key factors that private practitioners should take into account when deciding whether to participate with managed care organizations include careful contract reviews, likely credentialing requirements, and the impact of reimbursement on a practice. Potential solutions to common challenges are provided, such as limits on balance billing and waiver of co-payments. Ethical concerns specific to providing mental health treatment in the managed care context are discussed, such as limits on privacy and confidentiality. Potential implications of the ongoing seismic changes in the healthcare system for the future of managed care and private practitioners are explored.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Naoki Ikegami

AbstractThe triple goals of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) are to cover the whole population, to reduce patients’ costs, and to expand coverage to all effective services, equitably available to all. This paper analyses the experience of Japan in achieving these goals, focusing on the central role played by the payment system. The payment system, or fee schedule, sets the price of services and pharmaceuticals, as well as the conditions that providers must comply with in order to receive payment. The fee schedule was first introduced following the enactment of social health insurance (SHI) in 1922. Initially, the SHI program covered only manual workers, who comprised a mere 3% of the population. However, the fee schedule of the largest SHI plan was subsequently adopted by all other SHI plans. From 1958, there has been only one fee schedule. Population coverage was achieved in 1961 by mandating all residing in Japan to enroll in SHI, thereby making everyone entitled to all the services and pharmaceuticals listed in the fee schedule. Next, co-insurance was capped to an affordable level by the introduction of catastrophic coverage in 1973. Lastly, extra billing and balance billing were explicitly restricted in 1984. The key to achieving and sustaining UHC goals in Japan lies in being able to contain costs and reallocate resources by revising the fee schedule.


1995 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Colby ◽  
Thomas Rice ◽  
Jill Bernstein ◽  
Lyle Nelson

Author(s):  
Erik Schokkaert ◽  
Carine Van de Voorde

This article considers the use of user charges or co-payments in both developed and developing countries. It discusses a fundamental tension between controlling moral hazard and assuring access to needed services, especially amongst the very poor. This article focuses on public systems and only refers to empirical results for private insurers. It gives a brief overview of the importance of out-of pocket payments in the world and discusses the allocative effects of user charges, their implementation as a revenue-raising mechanism, and their effects on equity. It also discusses the quantitative information derived from various surveys. Finally, there is a deviation on two related phenomena: informal (even illegal) payments to providers and extra (or balance) billing, i.e. charging additional fees on top of the official fee schedule that is used for reimbursement. These raise same issues as user charges in general.


Radiology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 210491
Author(s):  
Richard E. Heller ◽  
Ed Gaines ◽  
Naveen Parti ◽  
Richard Duszak
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document