IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jhecon/v30y2011i1p99-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhanced fee-for-service model and physician productivity: Evidence from Family Health Groups in Ontario

Author

Listed:
  • Kantarevic, Jasmin
  • Kralj, Boris
  • Weinkauf, Darrel

Abstract

We study an enhanced fee-for-service model for primary care physicians in the Family Health Groups (FHG) in Ontario, Canada. In contrast to the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) model, the FHG model includes targeted fee increases, extended hours, performance-based initiatives, and patient enrolment. Using a long panel of claims data, we find that the FHG model significantly increases physician productivity relative to the FFS model, as measured by the number of services, patient visits, and distinct patients seen. We also find that the FHG physicians have lower referral rates and treat slightly more complex patients than the comparable FFS physicians. These results suggest that the FHG model offers a promising alternative to the FFS model for increasing physician productivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Kantarevic, Jasmin & Kralj, Boris & Weinkauf, Darrel, 2011. "Enhanced fee-for-service model and physician productivity: Evidence from Family Health Groups in Ontario," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-111, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:30:y:2011:i:1:p:99-111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-6296(10)00136-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas F. Crossley & Jeremiah Hurley & Sung-Hee Jeon, 2009. "Physician labour supply in Canada: a cohort analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 437-456.
    2. Thomas G. McGuire & Mark V. Pauly, 1991. "Physician Response to Fee Changes with Multiple Payers," Papers 0015, Boston University - Industry Studies Programme.
    3. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 2002. "Propensity Score-Matching Methods For Nonexperimental Causal Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 151-161, February.
    4. Devlin, Rose Anne & Sarma, Sisira, 2008. "Do physician remuneration schemes matter? The case of Canadian family physicians," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1168-1181, September.
    5. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2005. "Fixed-Effects and Related Estimators for Correlated Random-Coefficient and Treatment-Effect Panel Data Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(2), pages 385-390, May.
    6. Matt Sutton & Ross Elder & Bruce Guthrie & Graham Watt, 2010. "Record rewards: the effects of targeted quality incentives on the recording of risk factors by primary care providers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 1-13.
    7. Jinhu Li & Jeremiah Hurley & Philip DeCicca & Gioia Buckley, 2014. "Physician Response To Pay‐For‐Performance: Evidence From A Natural Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(8), pages 962-978, August.
    8. McGuire, Thomas G. & Pauly, Mark V., 1991. "Physician response to fee changes with multiple payers," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 385-410.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jasmin Kantarevic & Boris Kralj, 2013. "Link Between Pay For Performance Incentives And Physician Payment Mechanisms: Evidence From The Diabetes Management Incentive In Ontario," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(12), pages 1417-1439, December.
    2. Boris Kralj & Jasmin Kantarevic, 2013. "Quality and quantity in primary care mixed-payment models: evidence from family health organizations in Ontario," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 46(1), pages 208-238, February.
    3. Rudoler, David & Laporte, Audrey & Barnsley, Janet & Glazier, Richard H. & Deber, Raisa B., 2015. "Paying for primary care: A cross-sectional analysis of cost and morbidity distributions across primary care payment models in Ontario Canada," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 18-28.
    4. Bradley Rossen & Akhter Faroque, 2016. "Diagnosing the Causes of Rising Health-Care Expenditure in Canada: Does Baumol's Cost Disease Loom Large?," American Journal of Health Economics, MIT Press, vol. 2(2), pages 184-212, Spring.
    5. David Gray & William Hogg & Michael E. Green & Yan Zhang, 2015. "Did Family Physicians Who Opted into a New Payment Model Receive an Offer They Should Not Refuse? Experimental Evidence from Ontario," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 41(2), pages 151-165, June.
    6. Jasmin Kantarevic & Boris Kralj, 2016. "Physician Payment Contracts in the Presence of Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection: The Theory and Its Application in Ontario," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(10), pages 1326-1340, October.
    7. Coyle, Natalie & Strumpf, Erin & Fiset-Laniel, Julie & Tousignant, Pierre & Roy, Yves, 2014. "Characteristics of physicians and patients who join team-based primary care practices: Evidence from Quebec's Family Medicine Groups," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 264-272.
    8. Himmel, Konrad & Schneider, Udo, 2017. "Ambulatory care at the end of a billing period," hche Research Papers 2017/14, University of Hamburg, Hamburg Center for Health Economics (hche).
    9. repec:eee:jhecon:v:55:y:2017:i:c:p:76-94 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Wiesen, Daniel, 2015. "The Effects of Introducing Mixed Payment Systems for Physicians – Experimental Evidence," Ruhr Economic Papers 543, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    11. David Rudoler & Raisa Deber & Janet Barnsley & Richard H. Glazier & Adrian Rohit Dass & Audrey Laporte, 2015. "Paying for Primary Care: The Factors Associated with Physician Self‐selection into Payment Models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1229-1242, September.
    12. repec:zbw:rwirep:0543 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Jeannette Brosig-Koch & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Nadja Kairies-Schwarz & Daniel Wiesen, 2015. "The Effects of Introducing Mixed Payment Systems for Physicians – Experimental Evidence," Ruhr Economic Papers 0543, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:30:y:2011:i:1:p:99-111. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505560 .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.