What is a common consequence of the traditional FFS reimbursement model?

What is a common consequence of the traditional FFS reimbursement model?

• A. Emphasizes value over volume
• B. Incentivizes volume over value
• C. Ensures cost containment
• D. Eliminates wasteful services

Answer: (B)

Traditional fee-for-service reimbursement pays providers for each service performed, so the main effect is to incentivize volume over value. Because revenue grows with the number of tests, procedures, and visits, there’s a financial motive to deliver more services, even if they don’t meaningfully improve outcomes. This tends to increase utilization and overall costs, while care decisions are driven more by the quantity of services than by patient-centered value or coordinated care. Options that emphasize cost containment or eliminating wasteful services reflect value-based approaches, which differ from the traditional FFS model.

Traditional fee-for-service reimbursement pays providers for each service performed, so the main effect is to incentivize volume over value. Because revenue grows with the number of tests, procedures, and visits, there’s a financial motive to deliver more services, even if they don’t meaningfully improve outcomes. This tends to increase utilization and overall costs, while care decisions are driven more by the quantity of services than by patient-centered value or coordinated care. Options that emphasize cost containment or eliminating wasteful services reflect value-based approaches, which differ from the traditional FFS model.