PPO are the least expensive types of coverage. Point of service (POS) A POS plan uses some of the features of each of the above plans. Members of a POS plan do not make a choice about which system to use until the service is being used. In terms of using such a plan, a POS plan has levels of progressively higher patient financial participation, as the patient moves away from the more managed features of the plan. For example, if patients stay in a network of providers and seeks a referral to use a specialist, they may have a copayment only. However, if they use an out of network provider but do not seek a referral, they will pay more. POS plans are becoming more popular because they offer more flexibility and freedom of choice than standard HMOs. Private fee-for-service (PFFS) There are basically two types of health insurance: fee-for-service (indemnity) and managed care. Policies may vary from low cost to all-inclusive to meet different demands of customers, depending on needs, preferences, and budget. Fee-for-service is a traditional kind of health care policy: insurance companies pay medical staff fees for each service provided to an insured patient. Such plans offer a wide choice of doctors and hospitals. Fee-for-service coverage falls into Basic and Major Medical Protection categories. Basic protection deals with costs of a hospital room, hospital services, care and supplies, cost of surgery in or out of hospital, and doctor visits. Major Medical Protection covers costs of serious illnesses and injuries, which usually require long-term treatment and rehabilitation period. Basic and Major Medical Insurance coverage combined are called a Comprehensive Health Care Plan. Policies do not cover some services. Managed care in indemnity insurance plans Many "traditional" or "indemnity" health insurance plans now incorporate some managed care features, such as precertification for non-emergency hospital admissions and utilization reviews. They are sometimes described as "managed indemnity" plans. Impacts The overall impact of managed care remains widely debated. Proponents argue that it has increased efficiency, improved overall standards, and led to a better understanding of the relationship and quality. They argue that there is no consistent, direct correlation between the cost of care and its quality, pointing to a 2002 Juran Institute study which estimated that the "cost of poor quality" caused by overuse, misuse, and waste amounts to 30 percent of all direct healthcare spending. The emerging practice of