Which of the payment methodologies is designed to limit payment increases for providers?

The correct choice is associated with percent-of-charge contracts, which are designed to create a structure where providers are reimbursed a certain percentage of their standard charges. This methodology typically allows for some flexibility in pricing but does not inherently limit increases in payments in the same manner as other options.

In contrast, capitation contracts involve paying providers a fixed amount per patient over a period of time, which can effectively limit payment increases as it shifts the financial risk to the provider. This method encourages providers to manage care more efficiently and can lead to cost savings over time.

Risk-sharing agreements are focused on sharing financial risk between payers and providers, potentially leading to incentives that motivate cost management but do not specifically limit increases in payment.

Case-based contracts provide a fixed payment for specific episodes of care, encouraging efficiency in treatment but also not directly imposing limits on total payments over time like capitation contracts can.

Thus, the understanding of these payment methodologies shows that percent-of-charge contracts do not impose strict limits, and the inquiry essentially leads towards methodologies like capitation that inherently promote cost containment in a more direct manner.