TAG:
Fee-for-service
Fee-for-service has long been the primary payment model for clinical laboratories and pathology groups. Fee-for-service (FFS) is a payment model in which services are paid for as itemized in the provider’s invoice. It gives an incentive for physicians to provide more treatments because payment is dependent on the quantity of care, rather than quality of care. Similarly, patients are incentivized to welcome any medical service that might not be necessary. Insurance companies shield themselves against ruin by setting cover limits for every beneficiary.
FFS raises costs, discourages the efficiencies of integrated care, and a variety of reform efforts have been attempted, recommended, or initiated to reduce its influence (such as moving towards bundled payments and capitation).
Medicare Parts A (hospital insurance) and B (optional insurance that covers physician, outpatient hospital, home health, laboratory tests, durable medical equipment, designated therapy, outpatient prescription drugs, and other services not covered by Part A) are FFS programs. Medicare processes over one billion FFS claims per year.
As part of the ongoing drive to cut healthcare costs, this model is gradually being phased out by payers and healthcare organizations in favor of value-based payment models, such as pay-for-performance programs and accountable care organizations that are intended to cap costs and spread financial risk among providers, while encouraging coordination of care, disease prevention and better management of chronic conditions. This is seen as a threat to the survival of clinical labs, which expect to see far fewer tests ordered by healthcare providers.
The Clinical Laboratory Management Association is working to help labs navigate these changes. “As fee-for-service reimbursement gives way to bundled reimbursement and per-member-per-month payment, labs will only be successful if they add value to physicians by helping them diagnose disease earlier and more accurately,” says CLMA President Paul Epner.
CLMA has named this program “Increasing Clinical Effectiveness,” or ICE. THE DARK REPORT is one of CLMA’s partners in this effort.
“Our hope is that ICE is a catalyst that helps lab administrators, pathologists, and medical laboratory scientists broaden the focus of their laboratory beyond operational efficiency to include measurable impact on positive patient outcomes,” says Epner.
Today’s Lab Test Model Won’t Survive Reforms
By Robert Michel | From the Volume XIX No. 4 – March 12, 2012 Issue
CEO SUMMARY: For more than three decades, independent lab companies have waxed fat by increasing their respective market share of lab test referrals from office-based physicians. This era is poised to end as growing numbers of office-based physicians begin to practice medicine within an a…
Former Lab CEO Explains Why He Filed Lawsuit
By Robert Michel | From the Volume XIX No. 3 – February 20, 2012 Issue
CEO SUMMARY: It may be the first time that a former public laboratory CEO has turned whistleblower. Andrew Baker, formerly Chairman and CEO of Unilab Corporation in the 1990s, filed a qui tam case in federal court last year that centers on the practice of lab companies offering private he…
Integration of Clinical Care and the Lab Industry
By R. Lewis Dark | From the Volume XIX No. 1 – January 9, 2012 Issue
DURING 2012, THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES will make measurable progress toward the goal of integrated clinical care. In my view, this will be a positive development for clinical laboratories, since it creates opportunities for labs to step up and add value to physicians, patients, and p…
2011’s Top 10 Lab Stories Point to a Busy 2012
By Robert Michel | From the Volume XIX No. 1 – January 9, 2012 Issue
CEO SUMMARY: Given the specific news stories that make up THE DARK REPORT’S list of the “Top Ten Lab Stories for 2011,” it might be said that 2011 was a rather quiet year overshadowed by anticipation of the coming reforms mandated by the Accountable Care Act of 2010. For the clinica…
Why Capitate Genetic and Molecular Test Prices?
By R. Lewis Dark | From the Volume XVIII No. 17 – December 19, 2011 Issue
HOW MANY OF YOU LIVED THROUGH THE DECADE OF THE 1990s and experienced the free fall in the prices managed care plans paid for clinical laboratory testing? In California—at the peak of this insanity—some lab companies offered full risk, capitated contracts for as low as 20¢ PMPM (per member per m…
Healthcare Reform and Laboratory Testing
By R. Lewis Dark | From the Volume XVIII No. 12 – September 6, 2011 Issue
WE ARE ONLY 120 DAYS FROM IMPLEMENTING another round of programs mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 and associated legislation. Certain programs become effective on January 1, 2012. On that date, the transition to HIPAA form 5010 takes effect. All clinical lab…
How In-Clinic Path Lab Benefits GI Practice
By Robert Michel | From the Volume XVIII No. 12 – September 6, 2011 Issue
CEO SUMMARY: In Manassas, Virginia, a five-physician gastroenterology group is using its in-clinic anatomic pathology laboratory to advance patient care, while boosting revenue associated with this ancillary service. In this exclusive interview, the group’s physician business l…
Understanding the Deal With Medi-Cal and Quest
By Robert Michel | From the Volume XVIII No. 8 – June 13, 2011 Issue
CEO SUMMARY: It is now possible to see the specific language in the “Settlement Agreement and Release” document executed by the California State Attorney General and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated. For those clinical lab managers—and the attorneys who represent their labora…
Any Future for Loss-Leader Lab Pricing?
By R. Lewis Dark | From the Volume XVII No. 18 – December 27, 2010 Issue
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA, few pathologists or laboratory administrators are aware of the unfolding enforcement campaign that was initiated by the state’s Medi-Cal program. At issue is a decades-long practice of offering providers low laboratory test prices—in some cases well below the Medi-Cal fee …
Who Wins and Who Loses With 51501 Enforcement
By Robert Michel | From the Volume XVII No. 18 – December 27, 2010 Issue
CEO SUMMARY: Assume that California’s Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) wins all challenges to enforcement of its interpretation of 51501(a). DHCS will get a one-time cash infusion as it collects money from labs which violated the state statute. But going forward, feder…
CURRENT ISSUE

Volume XXXII, No. 6 – April 21, 2025
Now that a federal judge has vacated the FDA’s LDT rule, The Dark Report analyzes the judgement and notes the various steps the FDA could take in response. Also, lab testing at pharmacies is proving to be less successful than was once anticipated.
See the full table of contentsHow Much Laboratory Business Intelligence Have You Missed?
Lab leaders rely on THE DARK REPORT for actionable intelligence on important developments in the business of laboratory testing. Maximize the money you make-and the money you keep! Best of all, it is released every three weeks!
Sign up for TDR Insider
Join the Dark Intelligence Group FREE and get TDR Insider FREE!
Never miss a single update on the issues that matter to you and your business.
Topics
- Anatomic Pathology
- Clinical Chemistry
- Clinical Laboratory
- Clinical Laboratory Trends
- Digital Pathology
- Genetic Testing
- In Vitro Diagnostics
- IVD/Lab Informatics
- Lab Intelligence
- Lab Marketplace
- Lab Risk & Compliance
- Laboratory Automation
- Laboratory Billing
- Laboratory Compliance
- Laboratory Equipment
- Laboratory Information Systems
- Laboratory Management
- Lean Six Sigma
- Managed Care Contracts
- Molecular Diagnostics
- Pathology Trends
- People
- Uncategorized