Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Supplementing gatekeeping with a revenue scheme for secondary care providers

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Health Economics and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We study implications of a change in the payment scheme for radiology providers in Norway that was implemented in 2008. The change implies reduced fee-for-service and increased fixed budget for a contracted volume of services. A consequence of the change is that private providers have less incentive to conduct examinations beyond the contracted volume. Different from the situation observed before the change in 2008, the volume is no longer determined by the demand side, and a rationing of the supply occurs. We employ data on radiological examinations initiated by GPs’ referrals. We apply monthly data at the physician-practice level for 2007–2010. The data set is unique because it includes information about all GPs in the Norwegian patient-list system. The results indicate that private providers conducted fewer examinations in 2008–2010 compared with previous periods and that public hospitals did either the same volume or more. We find that GPs who operate in a more competitive environment experienced a greater reduction in magnetic resonance imaging, both performed by private providers and in total for their patients. We argue that this result supports a hypothesis that patients with lower expected benefits are rationed. Hence, rationing from the supply side might supplement GP gatekeeping.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To simplify, we set the copayment for patients covered by NIS equal to zero.

  2. We cannot disregard that the contracted volume equals the demanded volume. In that case, the decline in p would have no effect on production. Because of the RHA’s interest in cost control, we assume that the contracted volume is smaller than the total number of referrals.

  3. Since we assume that the waiting time is equal across providers in equilibrium, we do not need to consider the volume of each provider separately.

  4. In the term radiology, we include all modalities: X-ray, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computerized axial tomography (CAT scan).

  5. Iversen and Ma (2011) made use of data for 2004–2007. Unfortunately, due to changes in data specification beyond our control, this data set cannot be merged with the present data set for 2007–2010. Accordingly, we have a shorter period prior to the reform than we would have preferred.

References

  • Allard, M., Jelovac, I., & Léger, P. T. (2011). Treatment and referral decisions under different physician payment mechanisms. Journal of Health Economics, 30, 880–893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brekke, K. R., Nuscheler, R., & Straume, O. R. (2007). Gatekeeping in healthcare. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 149–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, A., Cutler, D., & Song, Z. (2012). Who ordered that? The economics of treatment choices in medical care. In M. V. Pauly, T. G. McGuire, & P. P. Barros (Eds.), Handbook of Health Economics (Vol. 2, pp. 397–432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croxson, B., Propper, C., & Perkins, A. (2001). Do doctors respond to financial incentives? UK family doctors and the GP fundholder scheme. Journal of Public Economics, 79, 375–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DAMASK. (2007). Influence of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee on GPs’ decisions: A randomised trial. British Journal of General Practice, 57, 622–629.

  • Dusheiko, M., Gravelle, H., Jacobs, R., & Smith, P. C. (2006). The effect of budgets on doctor behaviour: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Health Economics, 25, 449–478.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, A., Natvig, N. L., Løge, I., Engebretsen, L., & Ellingsen, J. (2004). Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee in Norway 2002–2004 (national survey): Rapid increase, older patients, large geographic differences. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godager, G., Iversen, T., & Ma, Ch-t. (2015). Competition, gatekeeping, and health care access. Journal of Health Economics, 39, 159–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gravelle, H., Dusheiko, M., & Sutton, M. (2002). The demand for elective surgery in a public system: Time and money prices in the UK National Health Service. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 423–449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, T., & Lurås, H. (2011). Patient switching in general practice. Journal of Health Economics, 30, 894–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, T., & Ma, C-t. (2011). Market conditions and general practitioners’ referrals. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, 11, 245–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jelovac, I. (2014). Primary care, gatekeeping and incentives. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health economics (Vol. 3, pp. 142–145). New York: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kornai, J. (1979). Resource-constrained versus demand-constrained systems. Econometrica, 47, 802–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lysdahl, K. B., & Hofmann, B. M. (2009). What causes increasing and unnecessary use of radiological investigations? A survey of radiologists’ perceptions. BMC Health Services Research, 9, 155.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lysdahl, K. B., Hofmann, B. M., & Ansgar Espeland, A. (2010). Radiologists’ responses to inadequate referrals. European Radiology, 20, 1227–1233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, A. (2000). Economics of general practice. In A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (Eds.), Handbook of Health Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 1175–1200). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siciliani, L., & Iversen, T. (2011). Waiting times and waiting lists. In A. Jones (Ed.), The Elgar companion to health economics (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: E. Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, J. (2012). Causes and consequences of regional variations in health care. In M. V. Pauly, T. G. McGuire, & P. P. Barros (Eds.), Handbook of health economics (Vol. 2, pp. 45–93). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, R. J., & Grytten, J. (2003). Service production and contract choice in primary physician services. Health Policy, 66, 73–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, J. D., Crim, J. R., Working, Z. M., Schmidt, R. L., & Burks, R. T. (2015). Physician provider type influences utilization and diagnostic utility of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 97, 56–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tor Iversen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iversen, T., Mokienko, A. Supplementing gatekeeping with a revenue scheme for secondary care providers. Int J Health Econ Manag. 16, 247–267 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-016-9188-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-016-9188-2

Keywords

Navigation