 Do financial incentives trump clinical guidance? Hip Replacement in England and ScotlandIrene Papanicolas and Alistair McGuire Journal of Health Economics, 2015, vol. 44, issue C, 25-36 Abstract: Following devolution in 1999 England and Scotland's National Health Services diverged, resulting in major differences in hospital payment. England introduced a case payment mechanism from 2003/4, while Scotland continued to pay through global budgets. We investigate the impact this change had on activity for Hip Replacement. We examine the financial reimbursement attached to uncemented Hip Replacement in England, which has been more generous than for its cemented counterpart, although clinical guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommends the later. In Scotland this financial differential does not exist. We use a difference-in-difference estimator, using Scotland as a control, to test whether the change in reimbursement across the two countries had an influence on treatment. Our results indicate that financial incentives are directly linked to the faster uptake of the more expensive, uncemented Hip Replacement in England, which ran against the clinical guidance. Keywords: Financial incentives; DRGs; Hip Replacement; Activity based payment; Clinical guidance (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:44:y:2015:i:c:p:25-36 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2015.08.001 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 |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.