Production of physician services under fee-for-service and blended fee-for-service: Evidence from Ontario, Canada
Health Economics (United Kingdom), ISSN: 1099-1050, Vol: 28, Issue: 12, Page: 1418-1434
2019
- 16Citations
- 94Usage
- 44Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations16
- Citation Indexes16
- 16
- CrossRef10
- Usage94
- Downloads93
- Abstract Views1
- Captures44
- Readers44
- 44
Article Description
We examine family physicians' responses to financial incentives for medical services in Ontario, Canada. We use administrative data covering 2003–2008, a period during which family physicians could choose between the traditional fee for service (FFS) and blended FFS known as the Family Health Group (FHG) model. Under FHG, FFS physicians are incentivized to provide comprehensive care and after-hours services. A two-stage estimation strategy teases out the impact of switching from FFS to FHG on service production. We account for the selection into FHG using a propensity score matching model, and then we use panel-data regression models to account for observed and unobserved heterogeneity. Our results reveal that switching from FFS to FHG increases comprehensive care, after-hours, and nonincentivized services by 3%, 15%, and 4% per annum. We also find that blended FFS physicians provide more services by working additional total days as well as the number of days during holidays and weekends. Our results are robust to a variety of specifications and alternative matching methods. We conclude that switching from FFS to blended FFS improves patients' access to after-hours care, but the incentive to nudge service production at the intensive margin is somewhat limited.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85073774430&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.3951; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31523891; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.3951; https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/epidempub/175; https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=epidempub; https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.3951
Wiley
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know