IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v22y2013i12p1417-1439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Link Between Pay For Performance Incentives And Physician Payment Mechanisms: Evidence From The Diabetes Management Incentive In Ontario

Author

Listed:
  • Jasmin Kantarevic
  • Boris Kralj

Abstract

Pay for performance (P4P) incentives for physicians are generally designed as additional payments that can be paired with any existing payment mechanism such as salary, fee-for-service, and capitation. However, the link between the physician response to performance incentives and the existing payment mechanisms is still not well understood. In this paper, we study this link using the recent primary care reform in Ontario as a natural experiment and the Diabetes Management Incentive (DMI) as a case study. Using a comprehensive administrative data and a difference-indifferences matching strategy, we find that physicians in a blended capitation model are more responsive to the DMI than physicians in an enhanced fee-for-service model. We show that for a given payment mechanism this result implies that the optimal size of P4P incentives varies negatively with the degree of supply-side cost sharing. These results have important implications for the design of P4P programs and the cost of their implementation.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:22:y:2013:i:12:p:1417-1439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.2890
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chalkley, Martin & Malcomson, James M., 1998. "Contracting for health services when patient demand does not reflect quality," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Boadway, Robin & Marchand, Maurice & Sato, Motohiro, 2004. "An optimal contract approach to hospital financing," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 85-110, January.
    3. Oddvar Kaarboe & Luigi Siciliani, 2011. "Multi‐tasking, quality and pay for performance," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 225-238, February.
    4. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2009. "Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 44(3).
    5. Heckman, J.J. & Hotz, V.J., 1988. "Choosing Among Alternative Nonexperimental Methods For Estimating The Impact Of Social Programs: The Case Of Manpower Training," University of Chicago - Economics Research Center 88-12, Chicago - Economics Research Center.
    6. James Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano, 2004. "Using Matching, Instrumental Variables, and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 30-57, February.
    7. Edwin Leuven & Barbara Sianesi, 2003. "PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing," Statistical Software Components S432001, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 01 Feb 2018.
    8. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    9. Frolich, Anne & Talavera, Jason A. & Broadhead, Peter & Dudley, R. Adams, 2007. "A behavioral model of clinician responses to incentives to improve quality," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 179-193, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    12. Sascha O. Becker & Andrea Ichino, 2002. "Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(4), pages 358-377, November.
    13. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2008. "On the Failure of the Bootstrap for Matching Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(6), pages 1537-1557, November.
    14. 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.
    15. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    16. Dusheiko, Mark & Gravelle, Hugh & Martin, Stephen & Rice, Nigel & Smith, Peter C., 2011. "Does better disease management in primary care reduce hospital costs? Evidence from English primary care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 919-932.
    17. Eggleston, Karen, 2005. "Multitasking and mixed systems for provider payment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 211-223, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Ham, John C. & Li, Xianghong & Reagan, Patricia B., 2011. "Matching and semi-parametric IV estimation, a distance-based measure of migration, and the wages of young men," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 161(2), pages 208-227, April.
    20. Donald W. K. Andrews & Moshe Buchinsky, 2000. "A Three-Step Method for Choosing the Number of Bootstrap Repetitions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 23-52, January.
    21. Andrews, Donald W. K. & Buchinsky, Moshe, 2001. "Evaluation of a three-step method for choosing the number of bootstrap repetitions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 103(1-2), pages 345-386, July.
    22. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra Todd, 1998. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 261-294.
    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. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Kokot, Johanna, 2014. "Sorting into Physician Payment Schemes – A Laboratory Experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 529, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    2. Iezzi, Elisa & Lippi Bruni, Matteo & Ugolini, Cristina, 2014. "The role of GP's compensation schemes in diabetes care: Evidence from panel data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 104-120.
    3. repec:eee:jhecon:v:55:y:2017:i:c:p:76-94 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Jeannette Brosig-Koch & Nadja Kairies-Schwarz & Johanna Kokot, 2014. "Sorting into Physician Payment Schemes – A Laboratory Experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 0529, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    5. Ammi, Mehdi & Fortier, Grant, 2017. "The influence of welfare systems on pay-for-performance programs for general practitioners: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 157-166.
    6. repec:eee:socmed:v:181:y:2017:i:c:p:24-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Mehdi Ammi & Christine Peyron, 2016. "Heterogeneity in general practitioners’ preferences for quality improvement programs: a choice experiment and policy simulation in France," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. repec:zbw:rwirep:0529 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:22:y:2013:i:12:p:1417-1439. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.