IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Alternative Compensation Arrangements and Productive Efficiency in Partnerships: Evidence from Medical Group Practice

  • Martin Gaynor
  • Mark Pauly

Although the role of the services sector in the economy has grown increasingly large, and partnerships are a prevalent form of organization in this sector, relatively little is known about the behavior and performance of these firms. In this paper an attempt is made to fill that gap by developing and testing a model of the effect of alternative compensation arrangements on productive efficiency in medical group practices. The technique employed is two-stage production frontier estimation. This technique provides direct estimates of productive efficiency and allows for differences across agents in ability or responsiveness to financial incentives. In the frontier literature productive efficiency is assumed to be exogenously given. In this paper it is determined endogenously, thus a simple econometric technique correcting for this endogeneity in estimating the production frontier is employed. In addition, the measures of efficiency themselves can be made dependent variables for explicit econometric analysis of the determinants of efficiency. Overall, the empirical results are consistent with theoretical work on internal theory of the firm, which predicts that productivity compensation schemes will work well for firms with non-joint production and observable output. These two criteria are met by medical group practices. The treatment of measured efficiency as an endogenous variable is unique and allows some interesting insights into the determinants of productive efficiency. We find that relating compensation to productivity does increase the quantity and efficiency of production, as theory has hypothesized. The number of members in a group decreases both the quantity produced and the efficiency with which that output is produced. Experience does lead to greater productivity and efficiency. Medical groups in general are measured as being no less efficient than an average manufacturing firm, but Health Maintenance Organizations are less efficient than average.

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.nber.org/papers/w2170.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 2170.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Feb 1987
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as "Compensation and Productive Efficiency in Partnerships: Evidence from Medical Group Practice." From Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp. 544-573, (June 1990).
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:2170
Note: HE
Contact details of provider: Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Phone: 617-868-3900
Web page: http://www.nber.org
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Richmond, J, 1974. "Estimating the Efficiency of Production," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 15(2), pages 515-21, June.
  2. Edward S. Cavin & Frank P. Stafford, 1985. "Efficient Provision of Employment Service Outputs: A Production Frontier Analysis," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 20(4), pages 484-503.
  3. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
  4. Forsund, Finn R. & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1980. "A survey of frontier production functions and of their relationship to efficiency measurement," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 5-25, May.
  5. Greene, William H., 1980. "Maximum likelihood estimation of econometric frontier functions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 27-56, May.
  6. Leibowitz, Arleen & Tollison, Robert, 1980. "Free Riding, Shirking, and Team Production in Legal Partnerships," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(3), pages 380-94, July.
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:nbr:nberwo:2170. 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: ()

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.