HEC Montréal, Canada.
J Health Econ. 2011 Sep;30(5):880-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.05.016. Epub 2011 Jun 28.
This paper analyzes and compares the incentive properties of some common payment mechanisms for GPs, namely fee for service (FFS), capitation and fundholding. It focuses on gatekeeping GPs and it specifically recognizes GPs heterogeneity in both ability and altruism. It also allows inappropriate care by GPs to lead to more serious illnesses. The results are as follows. Capitation is the payment mechanism that induces the most referrals to expensive specialty care. Fundholding may induce almost as much referrals as capitation when the expected costs of GPs care are high relative to those of specialty care. Although driven by financial incentives of different nature, the strategic behaviors associated with fundholding and FFS are very much alike. Finally, whether a regulator should use one or another payment mechanism for GPs will depend on (i) his priorities (either cost-containment or quality enhancement) which, in turn, depend on the expected cost difference between GPs care and specialty care, and (ii) the distribution of profiles (diagnostic ability and altruism levels) among GPs.
本文分析和比较了几种常见的家庭医生支付机制(按服务收费、人头费和基金持有)的激励性质。它侧重于把关家庭医生,并且特别承认家庭医生在能力和利他主义方面存在异质性。它还允许家庭医生提供不适当的护理,导致更严重的疾病。结果如下。人头费是导致向昂贵的专科护理转诊最多的支付机制。当家庭医生护理的预期成本相对于专科护理的预期成本较高时,基金持有可能会导致与人头费一样多的转诊。尽管受到不同性质的财务激励的驱动,但基金持有和按服务收费相关的策略行为非常相似。最后,监管者是否应该为家庭医生使用一种或另一种支付机制将取决于(i)他的优先事项(成本控制或质量提高),这反过来又取决于家庭医生护理和专科护理之间的预期成本差异,以及(ii)家庭医生的分布情况(诊断能力和利他主义水平)。