ライフサイエンスコーパス: fee-for-service

1 ance (ie, those who were considered Medicare fee-for-service).

2 97%) accepted private insurance and Medicare fee-for-service (93%).

3 for psychiatrists' patient care services was fee-for-service, accounting for 52.5% of psychiatrists'

4 We used Medicare fee-for-service administrative claims data to identify a

5 trospective analysis of a cohort of Medicare fee-for-service admissions associated with a PCI in 2005

6 and outcomes of persons in managed care and fee-for-service after adjusting for differences in demog

7 oping payment methods that blend elements of fee-for-service and capitation in innovative ways for pr

8 , predicts that methods blending elements of fee-for-service and capitation will outperform exclusive

9 equired psychiatrist-to-population ratios in fee-for-service and managed care environments.

10 of 68,374,904 unique Medicare beneficiaries (fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage).

11 cians using methods that blended elements of fee-for-service and subcapitation.

12 health diagnosis and enrolled in a Medicaid fee-for-service arrangement during the study.

13 health agencies (HHAs) were reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis and had incentives to provide more

14 g compensation to physicians on a discounted fee-for-service basis.

15 sed the Medicare database to identify 47 279 fee-for-service beneficiaries >/=65 years of age undergo

16 In a national cohort study of all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries >/=65 years of age with pr

17 cohort study of records for 736,536 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (mean age, 78.0 [SD, 7.3]

18 Among fee-for-service beneficiaries (n = 60,056,069), the tota

19 om a 20% random sample of 2005-2008 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 66 years or older with no

20 missions of Medicare enrollees (23.7 million fee-for-service beneficiaries [aged >/=65 years] per yea

21 t Standard Analytic Files, we identified all fee-for-service beneficiaries age >/=65 years with a pri

22 onary artery bypass graft surgery in 267,427 fee-for-service beneficiaries aged > or = 65 years who s

23 istry's ICD Registry, we identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged >/=65 years and older

24 of 2005 to 2011 Medicare claims to identify fee-for-service beneficiaries aged >/=65.5 years with no

25 used patient-level data from 119434 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years underg

26 fter discharge from a population of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older.

27 Serial cross-sectional analysis of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older fro

28 Retrospective study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older hos

29 s-sectional analysis involving male Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older hos

30 A total of 1,114,469 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older wer

31 ta from a 20% random sample of 2004 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who

32 Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, al

33 The cohort was limited to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 66 years or older liv

34 Participants were 1,843,764 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries at converting hospitals an

35 d patients' experiences in a group of 32,334 fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to ACOs (ACO gr

36 quality, and patient experience for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to initiative p

37 We studied all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries between 1999 and 2013, and

38 cardial infarction admissions among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries by principal discharge dia

39 ompare expenditures for the care of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries for 802 market areas, repr

40 f 2 789 943 AMI hospitalizations of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 1998 through 2010, we

41 Using a 5% national sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 2006 to 2011, we exam

42 A random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized during 2009-2

43 Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for heart fai

44 Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for HF, acute

45 ps, and changes in the intensity of care for fee-for-service beneficiaries in the last 1, 3, and 6 mo

46 Among fee-for-service beneficiaries in the last 6 months of li

47 ervational study limited to elderly Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries living in selected geograp

48 ants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries older than 64 years discha

49 h angiography is useful and effective), more fee-for-service beneficiaries than managed-care enrollee

50 aims from 2000 through 2002 for 1.79 million fee-for-service beneficiaries treated by 8604 respondent

51 ectional cohort study of 82,755,924 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing AVR in the Unit

52 e present the long-term survival of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing mitral valve re

53 ll NDI utilization rate per 100,000 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries was 215,652 for radiologis

54 5677 community-dwelling Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who died between 1998 and

55 onally representative 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who died in 2011.

56 differential change in outcomes for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who had a lower extremity

57 Patients were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received a ventricular

58 Observational study of 116,977 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who underwent colorectal s

59 from Medicare administrative claims for all fee-for-service beneficiaries who were hospitalized betw

60 A total of 104 >231 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who were hospitalized in U

61 ve analysis in 4738 US hospitals of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with acute myocardial infa

62 In this sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with poor-prognosis cancer

63 nd number of chronic conditions for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries' newly prescribed medicati

64 archical Condition Category risk score among fee-for-service beneficiaries).

65 on facilities providing services to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, 30-day readmission rates

66 ncreasing PE hospitalizations among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, IVCF placement increased

67 Between 1999 and 2013, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, patients were hospitalize

68 iciaries, trends in all-cause mortality; for fee-for-service beneficiaries, trends in all-cause hospi

69 Using a 5% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we identified all emergen

70 performed a descriptive analysis of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, with at least one home he

71 tion, and Medicare expenditures for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.

72 adjusted inpatient expenditures per Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary declined from $3290 to $2801

73 UTCOME MEASURE: Annual spending per Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary.

74 e cohort study of Florida and Texas Medicaid fee-for-service billing records matched to birth certifi

75 Furthermore, the gradual elimination of fee-for-service care in favor of bundled payments will p

76 with chronic illness, 41.8 percent preferred fee-for-service care, and 30.8 percent preferred managed

77 variation may in part reflect incentives in fee-for-service care.

78 The measure uses Medicare fee-for-service claims and is a composite of 5 specialty

79 ta (in-system hospitalizations) and Medicare fee-for-service claims data (out-of-system hospitalizati

80 We used all Medicare fee-for-service claims data for 1998 through 2000 to det

81 rformed a retrospective analysis of Medicare fee-for-service claims data for adults admitted for isch

82 A retrospective study was performed by using fee-for-service claims data from Medicare and a commerci

83 y from 2006 to 2009 were matched to Medicare fee-for-service claims data using indirect patient ident

84 A retrospective analysis of the Medicare fee-for-service claims data was performed for elderly pa

85 a Registry ICD registry linked with Medicare fee-for-service claims data.

86 nce in a 5% random sample of Medicare Part B fee-for-service claims for beneficiaries with disorders

87 Year 2009 Medicare fee-for-service claims for retinal detachment repair wer

88 st" patients, using a 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service claims from 2012.

89 rocedure Summary Master File, which reflects fee-for-service claims that were paid by Medicare, for C

90 On the basis of Medicare fee-for-service claims, the incidence of respiratory-rel

91 fference-in-differences analysis of Medicare fee-for-service claims, we compared Medicare spending fo

92 e those aged 65 years or older with Medicare fee-for-service coverage and diagnosed with acute myocar

93 Beneficiaries had Medicare fee-for-service coverage including pharmacy benefits.

94 g Medicare beneficiaries who had traditional fee-for-service coverage with the use among Medicare ben

95 er 31, 2011, for Medicare beneficiaries with fee-for-service coverage.

96 in managed-care plans than among those with fee-for-service coverage.

97 led in managed-care plans than in those with fee-for-service coverage.

98 th Atlas of Health Care (2006), and Medicare fee-for-service data on 30-day mortality and readmission

99 ts in 1995, supplemented by managed care and fee-for-service data.

100 ssions between 2008 and 2011 in the Medicare fee-for-service database.

101 patients in other managed care settings and fee-for-service did not differ significantly in their us

102 Using Medicare administrative data for fee-for-service disabled beneficiaries 21 to 64 years of

103 Among 24 165 patients with Medicare fee-for-service eligibility 30 days after discharge, 18.

104 ears) and had at least a 12-month history of fee-for-service enrollment prior to the index hospitaliz

105 zation rates per 100000 beneficiary-years of fee-for-service enrollment, in-hospital mortality, 30-da

106 Advisory Committee in 1980, which assumed a fee-for-service environment, but it is about 40% to 80%

107 trist-to-population ratio as a predominantly fee-for-service environment, it may well support a great

108 In the current fee-for-service environment, the financial incentives ar

109 and physician compensation are linked in the fee-for-service environment.

110 e Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as in fee-for-service environments, despite the absence of fin

111 Average fee-for-service expenditure per fee-for-service Medicare

112 ere associated with 2.0% decreases in Part A fee-for-service expenditures and 1.5% decreases in Part

113 ated with declines in both Part A and Part B fee-for-service expenditures per Medicare beneficiary (P

114 ce expenditures and 1.5% decreases in Part B fee-for-service expenditures.

115 arenthood affiliates from the Texas Medicaid fee-for-service family-planning program, Texas excluded

116 ocardial infarction among four payor groups: fee for service (FFS), health maintenance organization (

117 vices using data from the US Medicare Part B Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries and their providers.

118 ticipants by Medicare linkage status, having fee-for-service (FFS) coverage or not, and with a 5% sam

119 d 65 years or older, with both Parts A and B fee-for-service (FFS) enrollment comprised the annual de

120 More fee-for-service (FFS) indemnity patients (94%) completel

121 care insurance (MC) and 1,404 patients with fee-for-service (FFS) insurance who presented with unsta

122 er hospice stays than patients with Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) insurance.

123 of older patients with cancer in the VHA and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare and examined whether diff

124 ers for Medicare and Medicaid Services among fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries from 2012 t

125 uce expenditures while improving quality for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries.

126 ith that in non-VA healthcare settings under fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare financing.

127 Medicare managed care (MMC) and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.

128 e, readmission, and mortality among Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients undergoing mitral valve s

129 nd Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) decreased fee-for-service (FFS) payments for outpatient chemothera

130 for breast cancer in Taiwan compared with a fee-for-service (FFS) program.

131 ives between Medicare Advantage and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement structures influence

132 t, especially under a global budget cap with fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement, on processes and ou

133 in health maintenance organization (HMO) and fee-for-service (FFS) settings.

134 health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and fee-for-service (FFS).

135 ardiovascular medicine, including widespread fee-for-service genetic testing, population genetic stud

136 cific than common terms, such as capitation, fee for service, global payment, and cost reimbursement.

137 ut angiography facilities (31 percent in the fee-for-service group and 15 percent in the managed-care

138 enrollment was 66 percent of the rate in the fee-for-service group, whereas the rate in the HMO-disen

139 at their level of use dropped to that in the fee-for-service group.

140 disenrollment was 180 percent of that in the fee-for-service group.

141 rticular, are disproportionately enrolled in fee-for-service health care plans as compared to health

142 patients presenting with managed care versus fee-for-service health insurance.

143 lization of any service for RA than those in fee-for-service in either 1994 and 1999, including hospi

144 ely to participate in trials than those with fee-for-service insurance (odds ratio, 0.43 [95 percent

145 ding in rural communities, and patients with fee-for-service insurance continue to experience delays

146 s, 1 year, or 2 years of continuous Medicare fee-for-service insurance coverage prior to study entry

147 on; the 298 subjects were either enrolled in fee-for-service insurance plans or self-insured.

148 e enrollees were more likely than those with fee-for-service insurance to receive influenza vaccinati

149 Medicare beneficiaries with managed care and fee-for-service insurance.

150 le; being of nonwhite, nonblack race; having fee-for-service insurance; and residing in a rural commu

151 Among family members of older patients with fee-for service Medicare who died of lung or colorectal

152 g elderly individuals (>/=65 yr) enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare (U.S. federal health insurance

153 onducted a retrospective cohort study of all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries >/=65 years of ag

154 , we identified a cohort of 2 331 939 unique fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries >/=65-years-old f

155 The study population consisted of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries >or=65 years of a

156 We evaluated all 86,865 white or black fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 65 and older who

157 ular vision are increasingly prevalent among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older

158 ysis of the outcomes of a 2007 20% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or

159 rvational study using administrative data on fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or

160 U.S. fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and Oklahoma opht

161 p time of approximately 2 years among 22,516 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries at least 66 years

162 Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries discharged to a S

163 he United States and Puerto Rico, 55,097,390 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized betw

164 ere were 27.8 million elderly (age, > 64 yr) fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with

165 Participants were 5,153,877 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2007.

166 e of large US physician practices caring for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2013.

167 ns of surgical care in the USA among elderly fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in their last yea

168 Data were from 729 279 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries treated for cance

169 Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing CRT-D

170 Results Of the 1.2 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who developed pro

171 ion-based, retrospective cohort study of all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with heart failur

172 es-Stroke participating hospitals on 127,950 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with ischemic str

173 generally similar to or better than care for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, although adoptio

174 Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, the performance

175 Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, there is an inve

176 Average fee-for-service expenditure per fee-for-service Medicare beneficiary by market area.

177 and $8115 among those insured by traditional fee-for-service Medicare but without supplemental insura

178 Fee-for-service Medicare claims from January 1, 2009, to

179 We used administrative fee-for-service Medicare claims to identify beneficiarie

180 We examined fee-for-service Medicare data from 1992 through 2005 to

181 Our random 20% sample included 848,303 fee-for-service Medicare decedents (mean age, 82.3 years

182 study of a population-based cohort of 73,196 fee-for-service Medicare enrollees age 66 years or older

183 fy a population-based sample of 44,511 women fee-for-service Medicare enrollees aged > or = 65 years

184 tinal [GI] endoscopy) was assessed in 87,736 fee-for-service Medicare enrollees aged 65 years or olde

185 -Stroke between 2003 and 2013 were linked to fee-for-service Medicare files to obtain 30-day mortalit

186 ive cohort study of elderly beneficiaries of fee-for-service Medicare in the USA, aged 65 years or ol

187 605 older patients (>/=67 years of age) with fee-for-service Medicare initiating dialysis in 1995 to

188 on-based cohort study of elderly patients in fee-for-service Medicare is used, with 1,108,060 Medicar

189 We analyzed fee-for-service Medicare Part B claims for each year fro

190 bservational study conducted using data from fee-for-service Medicare patients (49,660 from reporting

191 The intervention group was composed of fee-for-service Medicare patients (n=819 779) from 10 gr

192 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Eligible fee-for-service Medicare patients (primarily with conges

193 A prospective cohort study was performed for fee-for-service Medicare patients hospitalized for AMI d

194 Fee-for-service Medicare patients with a definitive surg

195 Seventy community physicians and 2978 fee-for-service Medicare patients with diabetes mellitus

196 care Limited Data Set (5% sample of 27163740 fee-for-service Medicare patients) was analyzed for rate

197 asures of quality and cost performance among fee-for-service Medicare patients.

198 Fee-for-service Medicare pays for a very substantial por

199 ulation-based rates for each using the total fee-for-service Medicare population as the denominator a

200 The annual AMI hospitalization rate in the fee-for-service Medicare population fell from 1131 per 1

201 Compared with the fee-for-service Medicare population, the VHA population

202 be higher in the VHA population than in the fee-for-service Medicare population.

203 recipients (n = 688,183) enrolled in the US fee-for-service Medicare program from January 2003 to De

204 We linked data for participants enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare to claims files from 2003 throu

205 5 years of age or older who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare were also studied.

206 Of 1,802,029 elderly beneficiaries of fee-for-service Medicare who died in 2008, 31.9% (95% CI

207 A total of 9503 patients covered by fee-for-service Medicare who underwent EVAR from January

208 trospective cohort study of all hospitals in fee-for-service Medicare, 1996 to 2008.

209 s lower in the VA health care system than in fee-for-service Medicare, but lower use was not associat

210 rs living in SEER areas who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare, diagnosed with epithelial ovar

211 In fee-for-service Medicare, the dispersion of patients' ca

212 tend to younger patients or those outside of fee-for-service Medicare.

213 rvived >/= 3 years, and who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare.

214 her half were enrolled in the dually insured fee-for-service Medicare/Medicaid plan.

215 When asked about specific aspects of care, fee-for-service medicine was rated better than managed c

216 e at the end of life, 49.1 percent preferred fee-for-service medicine, and 20.5 percent preferred man

217 care, 52.0 percent of respondents preferred fee-for-service medicine, and 29.3 percent preferred man

218 c imaging has increased significantly within fee-for-service models of care.

219 The movement away from fee-for-service models to those that emphasize quality o

220 financing of physician services, especially fee-for-service, must be changed to recognize the value

221 Most cardiology models are modified fee-for-service or address procedural or episodic care,

222 sion rates were seen for managed care versus fee-for-service or capitated versus noncapitated plan ty

223 We analyzed Medicare fee-for-service paid claims data between 1994-2012 to de

224 icare claims between 1999 and 2012 among the fee-for-service participants (n = 106,458).

225 used national Medicare data to identify all Fee-for-Service patients >/=65 years of age who were hos

226 italization in patients enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service patients >/=65 years.

227 a for a 5% representative sample of Medicare fee-for-service patients (1.1 million adults) and a samp

228 retrospective cohort study of 7864 Medicare fee-for-service patients aged 65 to 86 years with the pr

229 tation: The analysis was limited to Medicare fee-for-service patients aged 65 years or older.

230 Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare fee-for-service patients at hospitals subject to penalti

231 ll US Census Divisions (regions) in Medicare fee-for-service patients between 2000-2008 (292 773 151

232 About 1 in 5 Medicare fee-for-service patients discharged from the hospital is

233 retrospective cohort analysis using Medicare fee-for-service patients from 2001 to 2004.

234 Medicare fee-for-service patients hospitalized in the United Stat

235 es at 180 days after ICD implant in Medicare fee-for-service patients.

236 The intervention group included Medicare fee-for-services patients diagnosed with colorectal, bre

237 x, and selected diagnoses, supplemented with fee-for-service payment for a wide range of visits and p

238 re might have accrued and may perpetuate the fee-for-service payment mechanism, with episodes of care

239 tacute care facilities under the traditional fee-for-service payment model.

240 Few expressed enthusiasm for "eliminating fee-for-service payment models" (7%).

241 Inappropriate incentives as part of China's fee-for-service payment system have resulted in rapid co

242 Replace the current fee-for-service payment system with a payment system tha

243 administrative costs, supply issues, and the fee-for-service payment system.

244 els, removing restrictions, and reverting to fee-for-service payment.

245 hat we can contain costs only by eliminating fee-for-service payment.

246 set for value-based payment: 85% of Medicare fee-for-service payments should be tied to quality or va

247 ected gains or losses relative to prevailing fee-for-service payments, assuming no change in practice

248 ted the association of the treatment system (fee-for-service physicians in the private sector vs sala

249 In 1994 and 1997, fee-for-service physicians were more likely than other p

250 Care for Medicare fee-for-service plan beneficiaries improved substantiall

251 ween the managed care plan and the unmanaged fee-for-service plan in adherence to the schizophrenia t

252 % less likely to be enrolled in HMOs than in fee-for-service plans after adjustment for age, other de

253 id not differ significantly between those in fee-for-service plans and those in managed care health p

254 In unadjusted models, enrollees in fee-for-service plans had higher rates of both depressiv

255 ndividuals are more likely to be enrolled in fee-for-service plans than in HMOs.

256 bundling payments and reimbursing based on "fee-for-service-plus" models, which take into account cl

257 lization rates fell markedly in the Medicare fee-for-service population between 2002 and 2007.

258 f procedures for skin cancer in the Medicare fee-for-service population increased by 13% from 2,048,5

259 In the 2012 Medicare fee-for-service population, the age-adjusted procedure r

260 rates between 1993 and 1999 for the Medicare fee-for-service population, which included approximately

261 in 2012 and BCC and SCC in the 2012 Medicare fee-for-service population.

262 red with salaried oncologists, physicians in fee-for-service practice, and those paid a salary with p

263 Medicare beneficiaries participating in the fee-for-service program in 1992.

264 om a state-funded replacement for a Medicaid fee-for-service program in Texas was associated with adv

265 As compared with the Medicare fee-for-service program, the VA performed significantly

266 ial disease-management model in the Medicare fee-for-service program.

267 ompare the quality with that of the Medicare fee-for-service program.

268 gnificantly better than that in the Medicare fee-for-service program.

269 s for beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare fee-for-service program.

270 Medicaid fee-for-service recipients under 2 years of age from Cal

271 for individual specialists included adjusted fee-for-service, referral-based capitation, and blends o

272 ow-cost patients to hospitals where they use fee-for-service reimbursement and high-cost patients to

273 s can be divided into 2 categories: enhanced fee-for-service reimbursement and set payments per patie

274 so, costs of a care management program under fee-for-service reimbursement may impede adoption.

275 care sectors was highly stimulated under the fee-for-service reimbursement scheme.

276 In countries with a fee-for-service reimbursement system (Australia, Germany

277 The migration from legacy fee-for-service reimbursement to payments linked to high

278 Under current fee-for-service reimbursement, patient values, medical s

279 associated with enthusiasm for "eliminating fee for service" (salary plus bonus: odds ratio [OR], 3.

280 val [95% CI] -11.4%, -1.7%) or than those in fee-for-service settings (difference of -12.5%; 95% CI -

281 in HMOs and those in other managed care and fee-for-service settings in rates of initiation or cessa

282 in managed care did not differ from those in fee-for-service settings in utilization or outcomes.

283 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in fee-for-service settings is common and rates vary by hos

284 agents than those in other managed care and fee-for-service settings, primarily due to lower rates o

285 s among patients with RA in managed care and fee-for-service settings, with and without adjustment fo

286 likely to use COX-2 inhibitors than those in fee-for-service settings.

287 s were those in organizations employing more fee-for-service staff and with more stressful climates.

288 The median payment under the fee-for-service structure was $29603 (IQR, $17742-$44819

289 ere significantly higher for patients in the fee-for-service system compared with those in the salary

290 ystem is in the midst of transforming from a fee-for-service system to a value-based system that deli

291 Individuals treated in a fee-for-service system were significantly more likely to

292 cardial infarction in a traditional Medicare fee-for-service system with underuse in the regionalized

293 ces by 375,406 beneficiaries in the Medicare fee-for-service system, 48,380 HMO enrollees before enro

294 y of care with that afforded by the Medicare fee-for-service system, using the same indicators of qua

295 ximately equal frequency in managed care and fee-for-service systems of care.

296 ence underlying HCM genomics has resulted in fee-for-service testing, making genetic information wide

297 The adjusted racial disparity in fee-for-service was 24.9% (95% CI, 19.6%-30.1%) and in m

298 sty was 1.9 times more likely in US Medicare fee-for-service white patients than African American pat

299 However, conventional fee-for-service will become less viable, and enrollment

300 performance, defined as providers being paid fee-for-service with payment adjustments up or down base