IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The "supply hypothesis" and medical practice variation in primary care: testing economic and clinical models of inter-practitioner variation

Listed author(s):
  • Davis, Peter
  • Gribben, Barry
  • Scott, Alastair
  • Lay-Yee, Roy
Registered author(s):

    Medical practice variation (MPV) is marked, apparently ubiquitous across the health sector, well documented, and continues to be a focus of professional and policy interest. MPV have stimulated two paths of investigation, one economic in emphasis and the other more clinical in orientation; while health economists have stressed the potential role of income incentives in medical decision-making, health services research has tended to emphasise clinical ambiguity as a factor in practitioner decisions. Both sets of explanations converge in an implicit "supply hypothesis" that posits contextual practitioner and practice attributes as influential in clinical decisions. Data on inter-practitioner variation are taken from a large and representative regional survey of general practitioners in New Zealand, a country in which unsubsidised fee-for-service is the predominant mode of remuneration in primary care. The paper assesses the impact on three important areas of clinical decision-making -- prescribing, test ordering, request for follow-up -- of three key conceptual dimensions -- income incentives, physician agency, and clinical ambiguity (operationalised as local doctor density, practitioner encounter initiation, and diagnostic uncertainty respectively). Predictions are made about inter-practitioner variations in the rate of clinical activity in the three areas. The results of the analysis using multi-level statistical techniques are: 1. the extent of competition -- local doctor density -- seems to have no effect on the pattern of clinical decision-making; 2. doctor-initiated visits are, if anything, associated with lower rates of intervention; 3. diagnostic uncertainty is associated with higher rates of investigations and follow-up, both of which have clinical plausibility; 4. there is no significant interaction effect between density and uncertainty. It is concluded that, for the clinical activities studied and for the practitioner attributes as operationalised in this investigation, a clinical, rather than an economic, model of practitioner decision-making provides a more plausible interpretation of inter-practitioner variation in rates of clinical activity in general practice. The "supply hypothesis" requires further analytical refinement and empirical assessment before it can be applied as a generic explanatory framework for MPV.

    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: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(99)00299-3
    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 Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 50 (2000)
    Issue (Month): 3 (February)
    Pages: 407-418

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:3:p:407-418
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description

    Order Information: Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/315/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01

    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:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:3:p:407-418. 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)

    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.