PHYSICIAN RESPONSE TO PAY‐FOR‐PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE FROM A NATURAL EXPERIMENT
Jinhu Li (),
Philip DeCicca and
Authors registered in the RePEc Author Service: Philip DeCicca
Health Economics, 2014, vol. 23, issue 8, 962-978
ABSTRACT This study exploits a natural experiment in the province of Ontario, Canada, to identify the impact of pay‐for‐performance (P4P) incentives on the provision of targeted primary care services and whether physicians' responses differ by age, size of patient population, and baseline compliance level. We use administrative data that cover the full population of Ontario and nearly all the services provided by primary care physicians. We employ a difference‐in‐differences approach that controls for selection on observables and selection on unobservables that may cause estimation bias. We implement a set of robustness checks to control for confounding from other contemporaneous interventions of the primary care reform in Ontario. The results indicate that responses were modest and that physicians responded to the financial incentives for some services but not others. The results provide a cautionary message regarding the effectiveness of employing P4P to increase the quality of health care. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (16) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Working Paper: Physician Response to Pay-for-Performance: Evidence from a Natural Experiment (2011)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:23:y:2014:i:8:p:962-978
Access Statistics for this article
Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones
More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().