Brosig-Koch Jeannette, Kairies-Schwarz Nadja, Kokot Johanna
Faculty of Economics and Business Adminstration and Essen Health Economics Center CINCH, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Health Econ. 2017 Dec;26 Suppl 3:52-65. doi: 10.1002/hec.3616.
In this study, we introduce the opportunity for physicians to sort into capitation or fee-for-service payment. Using a controlled medically framed laboratory experiment with a sequential within-subject design allows isolating sorting from incentive effects. We observe a strong preference for fee-for-service payment, which does not depend on subjects' prior experience with one of the two payment schemes. Further, we identify a significant sorting effect. Subjects choosing capitation deviate ex ante less from patient-optimal medical treatment than subjects who sort into fee-for-service payment. Particularly the latter become even less patient-oriented after introducing the choice option. Consequently, the opportunity to choose between fee-for-service and capitation payment worsens patient treatment, if at all. Our results hold for medical and for nonmedical students.
在本研究中,我们为医生提供了选择按人头付费或按服务收费支付方式的机会。通过采用具有顺序性受试者内设计的受控医学框架实验室实验,能够将选择行为与激励效应区分开来。我们观察到,受试者对按服务收费支付方式有着强烈偏好,且这种偏好并不取决于他们之前对这两种支付方案之一的体验。此外,我们还发现了显著的选择效应。选择按人头付费的受试者在事前比选择按服务收费支付方式的受试者偏离患者最优医疗治疗的程度更小。特别是在引入选择选项后,后者对患者的导向性变得更弱。因此,在按服务收费和按人头付费之间进行选择的机会,如果说有影响的话,只会使患者治疗情况恶化。我们的研究结果适用于医学专业学生和非医学专业学生。