Patient chosen gap payments in primary care: Predictions of patient acceptability, uptake and willingness to pay from a discrete choice experiment

D.S. Epstein, C. Barton, D. Mazza, Maame Woode and Duncan Mortimer

Social Science & Medicine, 2020, vol. 263, issue C

Abstract: Compulsory co-payments limit access and may compromise quality in primary care. Patient Chosen Gap Payments (PCGPs) allow patients to specify a (voluntary) out-of-pocket contribution, creating an incentive for patient-centred care without the need for complex outcomes-based funding formulae. It is not yet known if widespread use of PCGP services is consistent with consumer preferences. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in a sample of the adult Australian general population (n = 1457) during April 2019 to simulate patient choice between alternative primary care services and describe preferences for PCGP services. Participants also completed a supplementary valuation task in which participants reported their intended PCGP contribution for PCGP services. Finally, we conducted policy-simulations to predict market shares when PCGP clinics operate alongside the two existing models of primary care funding in Australia. Results suggest that patients prefer shorter wait time, longer consults, lower compulsory copayments, services with higher patient satisfaction ratings, choice of doctor and $0 suggested voluntary contribution for PCGP services. Policy-simulations suggest that high-quality PCGP services could obtain market share of up to 39% and voluntary contributions of up to $25.36 per service (95%CI: $10.24, $40.47), potentially adding $1.48 billion AUD in revenues and funding for primary care at no cost to government. Low-quality PCGP services are unlikely to capture significant market share and PCGP contributions were lowest for low-quality PCGP services ($12.12, 95%CI: $2.09, $26.34). Further field testing is recommended where (i) patients make consequential choices (e.g. real payments for simulated services), and (ii) dynamic effects on quality of care and utilisation can be observed; particularly in vulnerable populations. We conclude that PCGP services aligned with patient preferences could capture significant market share and substantially increase revenue to general practice.

Keywords: Gap fee; Out-of-pocket costs; Payment systems; Primary care funding; Health economics; Behavioural economics (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620305037
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:socmed:v:263:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620305037

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
http://www.elsevier. ... _01_ooc_1&version=01

DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113284

Access Statistics for this article

Social Science & Medicine is currently edited by Ichiro (I.) Kawachi and S.V. (S.V.) Subramanian

More articles in Social Science & Medicine from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().