IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/sduhec/2013_007.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patient heterogeneity and income under mixed remuneration - empirical explorations of general practice partnerships

Author

Listed:
  • Olsen, Kim Rose

    (COHERE, Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark)

  • Kristensen, Troels

    (COHERE, Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark)

Abstract

Background: Based upon the assumption that GPs utility as a function of income and leisure it has been suggested that GPs serving complex patients will face lower utility in mixed remuneration systems. The income effect in this model is ambiguous but is has been shown, with Danish data, that solo practices have lower income the higher the complexity of their patients. No analysis of partnership practices has been undertaken. Aim: To assess the income effect of patient complexity for partnership practices and discuss potential differences between solo – and partnership practices. Methods: A reduced form income equation based on the incomeleisure utility function is applied using OLS regressions on a dataset of partnership practices. Bootstrapping technics is used to estimate confidence intervals around the income effect of patient complexity and subgroup analysis is undertaken to assess differences between small and large partnerships. Results: As solopractices, partnerships have negative income effect of patient complexity meaning that the remuneration system is fully rewarding the resource use connected to serving complex patients. However the confidence interval on partnerships is ambiguous ( 4,614;2,559) and analysis of subsamples show that the income effect is negative for small partnerships (less than 4 GPs) and positive for larger partnerships (4 or more GPs). Analysis of list size and visits per patient indicates that larger partnerships are able to supply more fee for services to complex patients indicating either supply inducement from large partnerships or time rationing on small partnerships (and solo practices). Conclusion: The behavioural pattern in partnerships differs from that in solo practices and it cannot be assumed that their behaviour can be derived from the same utility function. It seems that we do not yet have a full understanding of the theoretical foundation of partnership behaviour under mixed remuneration.

Suggested Citation

  • Olsen, Kim Rose & Kristensen, Troels, 2013. "Patient heterogeneity and income under mixed remuneration - empirical explorations of general practice partnerships," DaCHE discussion papers 2013:7, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:sduhec:2013_007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sdu.dk/-/media/files/om_sdu/centre/cohere/working+papers/2013/2013_7.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Iversen, Tor, 2004. "The effects of a patient shortage on general practitioners' future income and list of patients," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 673-694, July.
    2. K. R. Olsen, 2012. "Patient complexity and GPS' income under mixed remuneration," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 619-632, June.
    3. Thomas G. McGuire & Mark V. Pauly, 1991. "Physician Response to Fee Changes with Multiple Payers," Papers 0015, Boston University - Industry Studies Programme.
    4. Gaynor, Martin & Pauly, Mark V, 1990. "Compensation and Productive Efficiency of Partnerships: Evidence from Medical Group Practice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(3), pages 544-573, June.
    5. 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)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Gaynor, 1994. "Issues in the Industrial Organization of the Market for Physician Services," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(1), pages 211-255, March.
    2. Badi H. Baltagi & Espen Bratberg & Tor Helge Holmås, 2005. "A panel data study of physicians' labor supply: the case of Norway," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1035-1045, October.
    3. Jostein Grytten & Dorthe Holst & Irene Skau, 2009. "Incentives and remuneration systems in dental services," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 259-278, September.
    4. Ge, Ge & Cheo, Roland & Liu, Rugang & Wang, Jian & Wang, Qiqi, 2023. "Physician beneficence and profit-taking among private for profit clinics in China: A field study using a mystery shopper audit," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2023:6, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme.
    5. Currie, Janet & Lin, Wanchuan & Zhang, Wei, 2011. "Patient knowledge and antibiotic abuse: Evidence from an audit study in China," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 933-949.
    6. Barili, Emilia & Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica, 2021. "Fee equalization and appropriate health care," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. K. R. Olsen, 2012. "Patient complexity and GPS' income under mixed remuneration," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 619-632, June.
    8. Christopher S. Brunt, 2015. "Medicare Part B Intensity and Volume Offset," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 1009-1026, August.
    9. Guccio, C. & Lisi, D., 2014. "Social interactions in inappropriate behavior for childbirth services: Theory and evidence from the Italian hospital sector," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 14/28, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Bernard Fortin & Nicolas Jacquemet & Bruce Shearer, 2008. "Policy Analysis in Health-Services Market: Accounting for Quality and Quantity," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 91-92, pages 293-319.
    11. Christopher Brunt & Gail Jensen, 2013. "Medicare payment generosity and access to care," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 215-236, October.
    12. Parida Wubulihasimu & Werner Brouwer & Pieter van Baal, 2016. "The Impact of Hospital Payment Schemes on Healthcare and Mortality: Evidence from Hospital Payment Reforms in OECD Countries," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 1005-1019, August.
    13. Bradley Chen & Victoria Y. Fan, 2015. "Strategic Provider Behavior Under Global Budget Payment with Price Adjustment in Taiwan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(11), pages 1422-1436, November.
    14. Baicker, Katherine & Chernew, Michael E. & Robbins, Jacob A., 2013. "The spillover effects of Medicare managed care: Medicare Advantage and hospital utilization," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1289-1300.
    15. 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.
    16. William Encinosa & Didem Bernard & Thomas M. Selden, 2022. "Opioid and non-opioid analgesic prescribing before and after the CDC’s 2016 opioid guideline," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 1-52, March.
    17. Nolan Miller & Karen Eggleston & Richard Zeckhauser, 2006. "Provider choice of quality and surplus," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 103-117, June.
    18. Brekke, Kurt R. & Holmås, Tor Helge & Monstad, Karin & Straume, Odd Rune, 2017. "Do treatment decisions depend on physicians' financial incentives?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 74-92.
    19. Lu, Fangwen, 2014. "Insurance coverage and agency problems in doctor prescriptions: Evidence from a field experiment in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 156-167.
    20. Jonathan Gruber & Maria Owings, 1996. "Physician Financial Incentives and Cesarean Section Delivery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 99-123, Spring.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    General practice; remuneration systems; partnerships;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:sduhec:2013_007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christian Volmar Skovsgaard (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hesdudk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.