J Korean Med Assoc.  2013 Oct;56(10):881-890. 10.5124/jkma.2013.56.10.881.

Payment reform for the improvement of primary care in Korea

• Jeong H
• Lee H
• Lee JH
• Lee T

• KMID: 2193412
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2013.56.10.881

Abstract

Strengthening primary care has always been a major policy issue in most developed countries to achieve the health care system's goals, and policy makers continuously try to use payment system as an effective tool to improve overall performance of primary care. In this paper, we examined the various payment methods and growing trends in primary care payment system in some developed countries. Overall, a common form of payment for primary care doctors is a blend of fee-for-service (FFS), capitation, and pay-for-performance (P4P). In addition, many countries are still in the way of many new trials to find the right way to provide primary care service effectively, to meet the complex health care needs of populations. In Korea, primary care system is not well-established, and other institutional arrangements are not in good conditions for primary care, either. FFS, which is a dominant payment method in Korea, is not favorable for achieving good attributes of primary care. Mixing various payment components, like capitation, P4P to current FFS is essential to provide the optimal incentive structures for primary care physicians. Also, new models to encourage doctor-patient relationships with appropriate P4P mechanisms could be used as an early step in reforming primary care payment system gradually.

Keyword

Primary health care; Payment system; Fee-for-service plans; Capitation; Reimbursement, incentive

MeSH Terms

Administrative Personnel
Delivery of Health Care
Developed Countries
Fee-for-Service Plans
Humans
Korea
Motivation
Physicians, Primary Care
Primary Health Care
Reimbursement, Incentive

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Payment reform process using pay-for-performance for primary care.

Reference

1. Starfield B. New paradigms for quality in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2001; 51:303–309.

2. Starfield B, Shi L. Policy relevant determinants of health: an international perspective. Health Policy. 2002; 60:201–218.

3. Lee JH, Choi YJ, Volk RJ, Kim SY, Kim YS, Park HK, Jeon TH, Hong SK, Spann SJ. Defining the concept of primary care in South Korea using a Delphi method. Fam Med. 2007; 39:425–431.

4. Fujisawa R, Lafortune G. The remuneration of general practitioners and specialists in 14 OECD countries: what are the factors influencing variations across countries? Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development;2008.

5. Simoens S, Giuffrida A. The impact of physician payment methods on raising the efficiency of the healthcare system: an international comparison. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004; 3:39–46.

6. Stefan G, Diana MJ, Peter PG. Managing primary care behaviour through payment systems and financial incentives. In : Saltman RB, Rico A, Boerma WG, editors. Primary care in the driver's seat? Organizational reform in European primary care. Berkshire: Open University Press;2006. p. 192.

7. Dourgnon P, Naiditch M. The preferred doctor scheme: a political reading of a French experiment of gate-keeping. Health Policy. 2010; 94:129–134.

8. Thomson S, Osborn R, Squires D, Reed SJ. International profiles of health care systems. New York: The Commonwealth Fund;2011.

9. Fitzpatrick S. Primary care: Ontario payment reform. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care;2010.

10. Hwang JN. Primary care payment reform in Ontario, Canada. HIRA Policy Rev. 2012; 5:88–94.

11. Kralj B, Kantarevic J. Primary care in Ontario: reforms, investments and achievements. Ontario Med Rev. 2012; 02. 18–24.

12. Rosser WW, Colwill JM, Kasperski J, Wilson L. Patient-centered medical homes in Ontario. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:e7.

13. Hollander MJ, Kadlec H, Hamdi R, Tessaro A. Increasing value for money in the Canadian healthcare system: new findings on the contribution of primary care services. Healthc Q. 2009; 12:32–44.

14. Rittenhouse DR, Shortell SM. The patient-centered medical home: will it stand the test of health reform? JAMA. 2009; 301:2038–2040.

15. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD health policy studies: value for money in health spending. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development;2010.

16. Charlesworth A, Davies A, Dixon J. Reforming payment for health care in Europe to achieve better value. London: Nuffield Trust;2012.

17. Whelan EM, Feder JM. Payment reform to improve health care: ways to move forward. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress Action Fund;2009.