IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Healthcare organizations’ attitudes toward pay-for-performance in Korea

Listed author(s):
  • Lee, Jin Yong
  • Lee, Sang-Il
  • Kim, Nam-Soon
  • Kim, Seon-Ha
  • Son, Woo-Seung
  • Jo, Min-Woo
Registered author(s):

    This study was conducted to assess views of healthcare organizations on pay-for-performance (P4P) in terms of its design, possible effects, and unintended consequences. This is a cross-sectional, self-administered, internet-based survey. Eligible healthcare organizations were 3605 organizations in Korea. Healthcare organizations of 522, including 31 tertiary teaching hospitals, 182 general hospitals, 158 hospitals, and 152 clinics, were participated in this survey. Rates of awareness and support of P4P, preferred P4P program design, and possible effects and unintended consequences resulting from the P4P program were identified. There were variations in the awareness and support from the type of healthcare organization. The preferred design was quite different from the current design of the P4P program. They believed that the P4P program would not have a significant economic impact on their organizations, but that the P4P program could stimulate positive changes in their practice behaviors. They also showed considerable concerns about unintended consequences. P4P implementing agency such as HIRA in Korea should make an effort to improve healthcare organizations’ understanding of the program. Also, HIRA could take into consideration of reflecting their reasonable opinions regarding its design components and unintended consequences.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Health Policy.

    Volume (Year): 108 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()
    Pages: 277-285

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:108:y:2012:i:2:p:277-285
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.09.002
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:108:y:2012:i:2:p:277-285. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    or ()

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.