Testing the myth of fee‐for‐service and overprovision in health care

Sibilla Di Guida, Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen and Anne Sophie Oxholm

Health Economics, 2019, vol. 28, issue 5, 717-722

Abstract: Paying on the basis of fee‐for‐service (FFS) is often associated with a risk of overprovision. Policymakers are therefore increasingly looking to other payment schemes to ensure a more efficient delivery of health care. This study tests whether context plays a role for overprovision under FFS. Using a laboratory experiment involving medical students, we test the extent of overprovision under FFS when the subjects face different fee sizes, patient types, and market conditions. We observe that decreasing the fee size has an effect on overprovision under both market conditions. We also observe that patients who are harmed by excess treatment are at little risk of overprovision. Finally, when subjects face resource constraints but still have an incentive to overprovide high‐profit services, they hesitate to do so, implying that the presence of opportunity costs in terms of reduced benefits to other patients protects against overprovision. Thus, this study provides evidence that the risk of overprovision under FFS depends on fee sizes, patients' health profiles, and market conditions.

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3875

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:wly:hlthec:v:28:y:2019:i:5:p:717-722

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 ().