Advertisement

An economic analysis of payment for health care services: The United States and Switzerland compared

  • Peter Zweifel
  • Ming Tai-Seale
Article

Abstract

This article seeks to assess whether physician payment reforms in the United States and Switzerland were likely to attain their objectives. We first introduce basic contract theory, with the organizing principle being the degree of information asymmetry between the patient and the health care provider. Depending on the degree of information asymmetry, different forms of payment induce “appropriate” behavior. These theoretical results are then pitted against the RBRVS of the United States to find that a number of its aspects are not optimal. We then turn to Switzerland’s Tarmed and find that it fails to conform with the prescriptions of economic contract theory as well. The article closes with a review of possible reforms that could do away with uniform fee schedules to improve the performance of the health care system.

Keywords

Principal and agent Optimal payment Payment for health services 

JEL Classification

I18 J33 J38 

References

  1. Ayanian J.Z., Hauptman P.J., Guadagnoli E., Antman E.M., Pashos C.L., McNeil B.J. (1994) Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. The New England Journal of Medicine 331(17): 1136–1142. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199410273311707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballard C.L., Shove J.B., Whalley J. (1985) General equilibrium computations of the marginal welfare costs of taxes in the United States. The American Economic Review 75: 128–138Google Scholar
  3. Campbell H.F., Bond K.A. (1997) The cost of public funds in Australia. The Economic Record 73: 22–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.1997.tb00976.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey T.S., Garrett J., Jackman A., McLaughlin C., Fryer J., Smucker D.R. (1995) The outcomes and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons. The New England Journal of Medicine 333(14): 913–917. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199510053331406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chin M., Friedmann P., Cassel C., Lang R. (1997) Differences in generalist and specialist physicians’ knowledge and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for congestive heart failure. Journal of General Internal Medicine 12(9): 523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eggleston K. (2005) Multitasking and mixed systems for provider payment. Journal of Health Economics 24(1): 211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eidgenössisches Volkswirtschaftsdepartement.Preisüberwachung. (1999). Stellungnahme zu den Tarifen GRAT/Infra. Bern: EDMZ (31.3.1999).Google Scholar
  8. Getzen T. (2007) Health economics and health financing. New Jersey, John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  9. Harrold L.R., Field T.S., Gurwitz J.H. (1999) Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. Journal of General Internal Medicine 14(8): 499–511. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.08168.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holmström B. (1979) Moral hazard and observability. The Bell Journal of Economics 10(1): 74–91. doi: 10.2307/3003320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holmström B., Milgrom P. (1991) Multi-task principal agent analysis: Incentive contracts, asset ownership and job design. Journal of Law Economics and Organization 7: 26–52Google Scholar
  12. Hsiao W.C., Braun P., Dunn D., Becker E.R. (1988) Resource-based relative values. An overview. Journal of the American Medical Association 260(16): 2347–2353. doi: 10.1001/jama.260.16.2347 Google Scholar
  13. Laffont J.-J., Tirole J. (1993) A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Page J., Weber R., Somaini B., Nöstlinger C., Donath K., Jaccard R. (2003) Quality of generalist vs. specialty care for people with HIV on antiretroviral treatment: a prospective cohort study. HIV Medicine 4(3): 276–286. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-1293.2003.00157.x Google Scholar
  15. Physician Payment Review Commission. (1988). Annual report to congress. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Robinson J.C. (2001) Theory and practice in the design of physician payment incentives. The Milbank Quarterly 79(2): 149–177. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ryan M., Gerard K. (2003) Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2(1): 55–64Google Scholar
  18. Tai-Seale M., McGuire T., Zhang W. (2007) Time allocation in primary care office visits. Health Services Research 42(5): 1871–1894. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00689.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Telser H., Zweifel P. (2002) Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: An application of conjoint analysis. Health Economics 11(3): 129–139 IM TEXT: 1999 (Seite 4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zweifel P., Breyer F., Kifmann M. (2009) Health economics, 2nd ed. Springer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  21. Zweifel P., Lehmann Hj., Steinmann L. (2003) Patching up the physician-patient relationship. In: Lindgren B. (eds) Arne Ryde symposium. Lund University Press, Lund, pp 207–233Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Socioeconomic InstituteUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations