Do physician remuneration schemes matter? The case of Canadian family physicians
Rose Anne Devlin and
Sisira Sarma
Journal of Health Economics, 2008, vol. 27, issue 5, 1168-1181
Abstract:
Although it is well known theoretically that physicians respond to financial incentives, the empirical evidence is quite mixed. Using the 2004 Canadian National Physician Survey, we analyze the number of patient visits per week provided by family physicians in alternative forms of remuneration schemes. Overwhelmingly, fee-for-service (FFS) physicians conduct more patient visits relative to four other types of remuneration schemes examined in this paper. We find that family physicians self-select into different remuneration regimes based on their personal preferences and unobserved characteristics; OLS estimates plus the estimates from an IV GMM procedure are used to tease out the magnitude of the selection and incentive effects. We find a positive selection effect and a large negative incentive effect; the magnitude of the incentive effect increases with the degree of deviation from a FFS scheme. Knowledge of the extent to which remuneration schemes affect physician output is an important consideration for health policy.
Date: 2008
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (97)
Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-6296(08)00056-8
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:jhecon:v:27:y:2008:i:5:p:1168-1181
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of Health Economics is currently edited by J. P. Newhouse, A. J. Culyer, R. Frank, K. Claxton and T. McGuire
More articles in Journal of Health Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().