Fee-for-service

You are currently browsing articles tagged Fee-for-service.

Do doctors tailor the care they provide based on the patient’s health plan?

October 12, 2011 in Physician Compensation | 1 comment

Many studies (including my own) have shown that physicians paid via capitation  perform fewer services than those paid via fee-for-service (FFS).  In the current health care world, however, most physicians treat patients from a variety of different insurance systems (notable exceptions are doctors working at Kaiser and the VA).

Two important research questions come to mind:

  • Do doctors tailor the care they provide to individual patients based on their insurance or is care provided based on the overall mix of a physician’s panel?
  • Are these same effects observed for physicians who own their own practice compared to those who are employees?

According to a paper by Landon et al. (2011), “ Physicians in highly capitated practices had the lowest total costs and intensity of care, suggesting that these physicians develop an overall approach to care that also applies to their FFS patients.”  The authors used data from the Community Tracking Study Physician Survey to reach this conclusion.

This result, however, was only shown to hold for primary care physicians.  The reimbursement differences for each individual patient may be smaller than the physician’s time (and psychic) cost to determine each patient’s payor and alter their recommended treatment regimen accordingly.  Thus, this conclusion makes sense for PCPs.

For specialists, however, this conclusion may or may not hold.  Particularly, for specialists who generally provide expensive procedures, altering care recommendations for individual patients based on their insurance coverage could have a very significant effect on the practice’s bottom line.

Thus, although I think this is an interesting study, it would also be interesting to see how the results were similar or different in the case of specialist compensation.

Source:

Tags: , , ,

Does Physician income increase from treating more complex patients?

July 18, 2011 in International Health Care Systems, Physician Compensation, Supply of Medical Services | 2 comments

In Denmark at least, the answer is no.

“From the theoretical model we find that higher levels of patient complexity lead GPs [General Practitioners] to choose a lower list size, whereas the effect on income is ambiguous. The effect on total utility (income and leisure) is, however, shown to be negative. Using empirical datafrom 1039 solo practices we find that patient complexity reduces both list size and income and conclude that amixed per capita and fee for service remuneration system does not fully compensate practices with more complexpatients. Differentiated per capita payment may represent a means of ensuring fair and equal income of GPs.”

Differentiated per capita payments may provide a fairer mechanism for compensating physicians for treating more complex patients. This type of reform, however, would also incentivize providers to upcode patient diagnoses in order to increase their per capita payments. Thus, this paper may provide the optimal solution in the case where providers are honest, but this same solution may not be optimal in the case where physicians are potentially dishonest.

The remainder of this post reviews how the authors arrived at the conclusions discussed below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,

How to pay doctors: As a Merchant or a Guardian?

June 18, 2009 in Supply of Medical Services | No comments

The book Systems of Survival (review) describes two moral structures: commerce and guardianship.  Jane Jacobs describes the ethics of Commerce as a moral syndrome equal, antagonistic, and complementary to the ethics of politics, or Guardianship. 

  • Commerce provides the economic engine and the ethical framework for trade, technological advance, and individual rights that combine to make governments worth living under.
  • Guardianship:  Government protects commerce, provides stability, administers justice, and enforces uniform standards.

The two moral systems reflect societies dilemma of how to  pay doctors.   Republicans generally think of doctors as fitting into the Commerce ethic.  They are type-A personalities whose drive leads to medical advances and an increased standard of living.  Doctors are scientific and believe in objectivity.  

Democrats believe physicians should fit more into the Guardianship role.   One could think of doctors as “professionals” who distribute advice similar to a government official.  The doctor’s role is to provide medical care to those who need it, not maximize revenue or only treat those who can pay.

The Commerce doctor should receive FFS payment; the Guardian doctor should work on a salary.  The “guardian” doctor is best for standard day-to-day care, but the “commerce” doctor is needed to advance medical knowledge and technology.  Resolving this conflict between the doctor as a commercial agent and a guardian may hold the key to improve physician payment structures.

Tags: , ,

How does managed care affect physician incentives to reduce care?

October 30, 2008 in Physician Compensation, Supply of Medical Services | Permalink

Patients generally believe that managed care systems are put in place to restrict their access to care.  Many patients believe that physicians who receive capitation compensation will provide less care to their patients than physicians who are paid on a fee-for-service basis.  A paper by Fang and Rizzo (2008) investigates whether or not this is really they case.

The authors find that “both capitated and noncapitated managed care significantly increased physician incentives to reduce care during 2000-2001.”  This is just what economists would predict.  When physicians receive capitation payment, they receive non-positive marginal revenue, giving them an incentive to reduce care.

By 2004-2005, however, Fang and Rizzo found no statistically significant difference in physician desire to reduce care between physicians in managed care organizations and those who were not.  Capitation compensated doctors still were more likely to reduce care levels than other doctors but this was only marginally statistically significant (p<.08) and of a much smaller magnitude.

What can we conclude from this?  Likely it is the case that over time, managed care organizations have become less managed; non-managed care organizations have put in place more restrictions over time.  Separately identifying how managed care incentives (e.g., referral restrictions) and physician compensation incentives (i.e., capitation vs. fee-for-service) impact care levels is very important as insurance plans become more homogeneous.

If you are interested in how physician compensation affects surgery rates, you can read my paper “Operating on Commission: How physician financial incentives affect surgery rates.”

Tags: , , ,

Physician Reimbursement and Technology adoption

December 3, 2007 in Academic Articles, Physician Compensation | Permalink

Economists and health researchers have generally shown that when doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis, they will advice the patient to undergo more medical procedures than when the doctor is paid on a capitation or salaried basis (see my own paper: “Operating on Commission“). Which payment method maximizes welfare has not been proven and is likely to vary based on the medical procedure in question.

To add to the confusion, Astrid Selder writes in “Physician Reimbursement and Technology Adoption” that physician reimbursement mechanism may also affect the rate at which new technologies are adopted.

Selder lays out the following simple theoretical structure in which the social planner maximizes the following:

  • (1-π)U(Y-P)+πU(Y-P-acm-ε +G(m) -nm)
  • s.t.: P + πacm-%pi;R=πpm>=0
  • s.t.: R + (p-c)m>=0
  • s.t.: m<=B

The first constraints represent the zero-profit conditions for the insurer and the physician respectively and the third is a technology constraint. The probability of falling ill is π. Individuals have income Y, an insurance premium of P, and a coinsurance rate of a to may for the marginal cost, c, of a given level of medical treatment, m. Non monetary treatment costs (e.g.: side effects, time costs) are represented by the parameter n, while the benefits of the treatment are represented by the function G(m). The doctor receives a capitation payment of R and a marginal revenue amount given by p-c. B represents the technology constraint.

It seems obvious, but Selder shows that an increase in monetary medical costs (c) or non-medical costs (n) are welfare destroying. Technological innovations, represented as an increase in B are welfare improving if the technological constraint is binding or have no impact on welfare is the technological constraint is not binding. This results is intuitive: higher costs are bad, technological innovation is good.

This result, however, only holds when there is perfect information. With asymmetrical information, technological innovations may be welfare enhancing or welfare destroying. The welfare enhancing argument is similar to above: better technology leads to better medical care. If there is a moral hazard problem, however, using more basic technologies may actually help to counteract the tendency to over-consume medical care in the presence of insurance. Also, in the presence of moral hazard, technological innovations will cause insurance companies to charge higher premiums in order to cover the additional cost of this care.

How does the technological constraint, B, affect welfare in different physician compensation schemes?

  • “If B is a binding constraint and increases in B are welfare enhancing then a fee-for-service system should be used. Increases in B and reductions in [monetary medical costs] c are induced all of which are welfare improvements. Incentives with respect to [non-monetary costs] n cannot be improved upon.
  • If B is a binding constraint and increases in B are welfare reducing then a system of cost sharing [e.g.: capitation] should be implemented which induces reductions in B and c and gives no clearcut incentives with respect to n. Incentives with respect to B and c are thus optimal, and incentives with respect to n cannot be improved upon.
  • If B is not binding the optimal reimbursement system depends on the demand elasticities with respect to costs.”

In words:

“It has turned out that the state should classify diseases or treatments into subgroups which are reimbursed differently in order to achieve the desired welfare effects in each subgroup. Especially for the case of extremely severe illness shocks the introduction of a fee-for-service system may be socially desirable. It is these very severe diseases where the capitation system seems to induce negative welfare effects with respect to the technologically feasible boundary of treatment. Cost sharing/capitation systems are most suitable for treatments where a reduction of the amount of health care consumed is desirable.”

While the solution Selder proposes is logical, it does not take into account the cost to the state to collect information regarding these disease classes. Lobbying will likely influence whether a given treatment falls into the fee-for-service or cost-sharing grouping. Nevertheless, Selder’s general findings seems reasonable and applicable to the medical care finance design in the real world.

Tags: , , ,