We have located links that may give you full text access.
Health care purchasing in Kenya: Experiences of health care providers with capitation and fee-for-service provider payment mechanisms.
International Journal of Health Planning and Management 2018 November 14
BACKGROUND: Provider payment mechanisms (PPMs) play a critical role in universal health coverage due to the incentives they create for health care providers to deliver needed services, quality, and efficiency. We set out to explore public, private, and faith-based providers' experiences with capitation and fee-for-service in Kenya and identified attributes of PPMs that providers considered important.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study in two counties in Kenya. Data were collected using semistructured interviews with 29 management team members in six health providers accredited by the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF).
RESULTS: Capitation and fee-for-service payments from the NHIF and private insurers were reported as good revenue sources as they contributed to providers' overall income. The expected fee-for-service payment amounts from NHIF and private insurers were predictable while capitation funds from NHIF were not because providers did not have information on the number of enrolees in their capitation pool. Moreover, capitation payment rates were perceived as inadequate. Capitation and fee-for-service payments from NHIF and private insurers were disbursed late. Finally, public providers had lost their autonomy to access and utilise capitation and fee-for-service payments from the NHIF.
CONCLUSION: Through their experiences, health care providers revealed characteristics of PPMs that they considered important.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study in two counties in Kenya. Data were collected using semistructured interviews with 29 management team members in six health providers accredited by the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF).
RESULTS: Capitation and fee-for-service payments from the NHIF and private insurers were reported as good revenue sources as they contributed to providers' overall income. The expected fee-for-service payment amounts from NHIF and private insurers were predictable while capitation funds from NHIF were not because providers did not have information on the number of enrolees in their capitation pool. Moreover, capitation payment rates were perceived as inadequate. Capitation and fee-for-service payments from NHIF and private insurers were disbursed late. Finally, public providers had lost their autonomy to access and utilise capitation and fee-for-service payments from the NHIF.
CONCLUSION: Through their experiences, health care providers revealed characteristics of PPMs that they considered important.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app