C S Dewa1, J S Hoch, P Goering. 1. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Health Systems Research and Consulting Unit, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. carolyn_dewa@camh.net
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To consider the most common primary care reimbursement structures, to identify incentives inherent in each, and to discuss how each could be used to encourage a shared-care approach to treating mental disorders at the primary care level. METHOD: Three major financial reimbursement models--fee-for-service, capitation, and blended payment mechanisms--are examined. Each is considered in terms of its risk-sharing elements and the consequent incentives. We offer several scenarios to illustrate how the shared-care practice model might be encouraged under each financing mechanism. RESULTS: The current fee-for-service system does not encourage shared care. For wide adoption of the shared-care practice model, there must be a change in the reimbursement system's incentives. While none of the financing mechanisms offers a perfect solution, each has potential. Each, however, must be carefully tailored to its environment. CONCLUSIONS: Financial considerations are just one aspect to achieving shared care. Nevertheless, in designing a system to encourage collaborative, coordinated care for those suffering from mental illness, decision makers should be wary of creating or maintaining obstacles (financial or otherwise) to provision of accessible, high-quality care.
OBJECTIVES: To consider the most common primary care reimbursement structures, to identify incentives inherent in each, and to discuss how each could be used to encourage a shared-care approach to treating mental disorders at the primary care level. METHOD: Three major financial reimbursement models--fee-for-service, capitation, and blended payment mechanisms--are examined. Each is considered in terms of its risk-sharing elements and the consequent incentives. We offer several scenarios to illustrate how the shared-care practice model might be encouraged under each financing mechanism. RESULTS: The current fee-for-service system does not encourage shared care. For wide adoption of the shared-care practice model, there must be a change in the reimbursement system's incentives. While none of the financing mechanisms offers a perfect solution, each has potential. Each, however, must be carefully tailored to its environment. CONCLUSIONS: Financial considerations are just one aspect to achieving shared care. Nevertheless, in designing a system to encourage collaborative, coordinated care for those suffering from mental illness, decision makers should be wary of creating or maintaining obstacles (financial or otherwise) to provision of accessible, high-quality care.
Authors: Icro Maremmani; Mauro Cibin; Pier Paolo Pani; Alessandro Rossi; Giuseppe Turchetti Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Eva Rothermund; Martina Michaelis; Marc N Jarczok; Elisabeth M Balint; Rahna Lange; Stephan Zipfel; Harald Gündel; Monika A Rieger; Florian Junne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 3.390