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

Incentives in primary care and their impact on potentially avoidable hospital admissions

  • Gianluca Fiorentini
  • Elisa Iezzi
  • Matteo Lippi Bruni

    ()

  • Cristina Ugolini

Financial incentives in primary care have been often introduced with the purpose of improvingappropriateness of care and containing demand. We usually observe pay-for-performance programs, but alternatives have been also implemented, such as pay-for-participation in improvement activities and pay-for-compliance with clinical guidelines. Here, we assess the influence of different programs which ensure extra-payments to GPs, for containing episodes of avoidable hospitalisations. Our dataset covers patients and GPs of the Italian region Emilia-Romagna for year 2005, and we control for a wide range of factors potentially influencing GPs’ behaviour. By separating pay-for-performance from pay-for-participation and pay-for-compliance programs, we estimate the impact on the probability of (inappropriate) hospitalisation of financial incentives included in contracts between GPs and the NHS. As dependent variable, we consider two different sets of conditions, for both of which timely and effective primary care should be able to limit the need of hospital admission. The first is based on 27 medical DRGs that Emilia-Romagna identifies as at risk of inappropriateness in primary care, while the second refers to the internationally recognised ACSCs (ambulatory care-sensitive conditions). We show that pay-for-performance schemes may have a significant effect over aggregate indicators of appropriateness, while the effectiveness of pay-for-participation schemes is adequately captured only by taking into account subpopulations affected by specific diseases. Moreover, the same incentive scheme has fairly different effects on the two sets of indicators used, with performance improvements limited to the target explicitly addressed by the policy maker (i.e. the list of 27 DRGs). This evidence is consistent with the idea that a “tunnel vision” effect may occur when public authorities promote and monitor specific sets of objectives, as proxies for more general improvements in health care pr

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

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://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10198-010-0230-x
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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 Springer & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ) in its journal The European Journal of Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 12 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4 (August)
Pages: 297-309

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:12:y:2011:i:4:p:297-309
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-010-0230-x
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springer.com

Web page: https://www.dggoe.de/

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web: http://www.springer.com/medicine/health+informatics/journal/10198/PS2

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Godager, Geir & Iversen, Tor & Ma , Ching-To Albert, 2009. "Service motives and profit incentives among physicans," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2007:4, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.
  2. Scott, A & Schurer, S & Jensen, P H & Sivey, P, 2008. "The Effects of Financial Incentives on Quality of Care: The Case of Diabetes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 08/15, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
  3. W. J. Browne & S. V. Subramanian & K. Jones & H. Goldstein, 2005. "Variance partitioning in multilevel logistic models that exhibit overdispersion," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(3), pages 599-613.
  4. Edward P. Lazear, 1996. "Performance Pay and Productivity," NBER Working Papers 5672, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. David Cutler, 2006. "The Economics of Health System Payment," De Economist, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 1-18, 03.
  6. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith & Christopher Taber, 1996. "What Do Bureaucrats Do? The Effects of Performance Standards and Bureaucratic Preferences on Acceptance into the JTPA Program," NBER Working Papers 5535, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. George France & Francesco Taroni & Andrea Donatini, 2005. "The Italian health-care system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(S1), pages S187-S202.
  8. P.C. Smith, 2002. "Measuring health system performance," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 3(3), pages 145-148, September.
  9. Victor Lavy, 2009. "Performance Pay and Teachers' Effort, Productivity, and Grading Ethics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1979-2011, December.
  10. Lippi Bruni, Matteo & Nobilio, Lucia & Ugolini, Cristina, 2009. "Economic incentives in general practice: The impact of pay-for-participation and pay-for-compliance programs on diabetes care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(2-3), pages 140-148, May.
  11. Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2000. "Pay Enough or Don't Pay at All," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 791-810.
  12. Iversen, Tor & Luras, Hilde, 2000. "Economic motives and professional norms: the case of general medical practice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 447-470, December.
  13. Avinash Dixit, 2002. "# Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector: An Interpretative Review," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 696-727.
  14. Bruno S. Frey & Reto Jegen, 2000. "Motivation Crowding Theory: A Survey of Empirical Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 245, CESifo Group Munich.
  15. Nigel Rice & Andrew Jones, 1997. "Multilevel models and health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(6), pages 561-575.
  16. Maria Goddard & Russell Mannion & Peter Smith, 2000. "Enhancing performance in health care: a theoretical perspective on agency and the role of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 95-107.
  17. Canice Prendergast, 1999. "The Provision of Incentives in Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 7-63, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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:spr:eujhec:v:12:y:2011:i:4:p:297-309. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

or (Rebekah McClure)

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.