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 who were beneficiaries of Medicare Parts A&B fee-for-service.

3 Using Medicare fee-for-service 5% claims data from 2007 to 2013, we ana

4 97%) accepted private insurance and Medicare fee-for-service (93%).

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

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

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

8 Medicare fee-for-service alone does not insulate individuals from

9 he hospital, $26 867+/-$14 893, for medicare fee for service and $57 978+/-$29 431 for Medicare Advan

10 al margin of -$30 828+/-$39 757 for medicare fee for service and -$6055+/-$45 033 for medicare advant

11 bed the advantages and disadvantages of both fee-for-service and alternative payment models, and few

12 s for Michigan residents insured by Medicare fee-for-service and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan/B

13 episodes of care constructed using Medicare fee-for-service and commercial insurance claims from Jan

14 zation rates by modality, comparing Medicare fee-for-service and commercially insured enrollees.

15 skilled nursing facility admission for all (fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage) Medicare patient

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

17 for patients were $2156+/-$1999 for medicare fee for service, and $1658+/-$1250 for medicare advantag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26 rial cross-sectional study of rural Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries admitted to US CAHs and no

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

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

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

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

31 , 2015 and September 30, 2016 among Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries aged >=65 years.

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

33 Using 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years who un

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

35 TS: Serial cross-sectional study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older bet

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

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

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

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

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

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

42 Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, du

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

44 Combining data for fee-for-service beneficiaries and estimates for Medicare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

59 daily readmission rates for elderly Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries through day-60 post-discha

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

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

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

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

64 5677 community-dwelling Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who died between 1998 and

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

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

67 re claims and enrollment data for a group of fee-for-service beneficiaries who had been attributed to

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

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

70 We identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who were CR eligible in 20

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

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

73 08 to 2015 to create (1) a cohort of 295 494 fee-for-service beneficiaries with >=1 hospitalization f

74 mporary 6-month mortality rates for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a sepsis inpatient ad

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

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

77 readmission and mortality rates for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with pulmonary embolism (P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

87 t savings with stable quality among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.

88 changes that benefit all patients, not just fee-for-service beneficiaries.

89 2018, the total number of Medicare Part A/B (fee-for-service) beneficiaries with an inpatient hospita

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

107 lar Data Registry ICD Registry with Medicare fee-for-service claims to identify physicians who perfor

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

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

110 iary Survey data (n=3614) linked to Medicare fee-for-service claims.

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

112 Decedents with only traditional Medicare fee-for-service coverage have the highest out-of-pocket

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

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

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

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

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

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

119 rationing by the general public; and fourth, fee-for-service driven use of advanced medical technolog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

140 a service provider, ranging from short-term, fee-for-service (FFS)-based arrangements to more strateg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

152 claims databases for all adults enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare and for roughly 9 million comme

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 inception cohort study used claims data from fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for

165 Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

178 Using claims from a 20% sample of national fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, we calculated ep

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

180 Retrospective analysis of fee-for-service Medicare claims data from 761 acute care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

190 605 older patients (>/=67 years of age) with fee-for-service Medicare initiating dialysis in 1995 to

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

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

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

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

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

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

197 Only fee-for-service Medicare patients in a single state were

198 Cross-sectional study of fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing total hip r

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

200 We identified Fee-For-Service Medicare patients within the 5% enhanced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

209 laims data from a 20% sample of enrollees in fee-for-service Medicare throughout the United States we

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

211 5 years of age or older who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare were also studied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

221 physician organizations that continued in a fee-for-service model in 2016 but had 3PC start dates th

222 model will have to shift increasingly from a fee-for-service model to a value-based model.

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

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

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

226 Payer costs were assigned using medicare fee for service national payments, while medicare advant

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

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

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

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

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

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

233 The study included 453 783 Medicare fee-for-service patients >=65 years of age with CAD (mea

234 Retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service patients >=65 years with CAD at outpatie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

248 ning of primary health-care practitioners, a fee-for-service payment system that incentivises testing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

260 c ultrasound (B-scan) billed in the Medicare fee-for-service population from 2012-2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 nt payment system, which is largely based on fee-for-service reimbursement, leads to uncoordinated, f

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

296 Healthcare reimbursement is shifting from fee-for-service to fee-for-value.

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