Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:19999312rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0015743lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19999312lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0010176lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:issue225lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:dateCreated2009-12-14lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:abstractTextMedical fee schedules are controversial. In this paper we examine the reasons that justify the imposition of fee schedules in the presence of a socially financed health insurance system, and examine the ways of constructing a medical fee schedule. The weakness of fee-for-service tariffs is that they do not allow a control of health care costs if the volume of services is unchecked. Current solutions to this problem--audit of doctors' average cost per case, freeze on new medical practices, or the insurers' discretion in choosing the doctors they reimburse--have multiple drawbacks. Alternatives to fee-for-service payment--such as flat fees, or payment based on the quality of medical services--are discussed.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:languagefrelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:monthNovlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:issn1660-9379lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HerrmannFranç...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:authorpubmed-author:PernegerThoma...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:day11lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:volume5lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:pagination2254-7lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19999312...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19999312...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19999312...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19999312...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19999312...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19999312...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19999312...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:19999312...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:year2009lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:articleTitle[Fee schedules and cost containment].lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:affiliationService d'epidémiologie clinique, Département de rehabilitation et gériatrie, HUG, 1211 Genève 14. Thomas.Perneger@hcuge.chlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:19999312pubmed:publicationTypeEnglish Abstractlld:pubmed