Supplementing gatekeeping with a revenue scheme for secondary care providers

  • Tor Iversen
  • Anastasia Mokienko
Research Article


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.


Physician Profit motive Referral Gatekeeping Fee-for-service Radiology 


  1. Allard, M., Jelovac, I., & Léger, P. T. (2011). Treatment and referral decisions under different physician payment mechanisms. Journal of Health Economics, 30, 880–893.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brekke, K. R., Nuscheler, R., & Straume, O. R. (2007). Gatekeeping in healthcare. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 149–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DAMASK. (2007). Influence of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee on GPs’ decisions: A randomised trial. British Journal of General Practice, 57, 622–629.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Godager, G., Iversen, T., & Ma, Ch-t. (2015). Competition, gatekeeping, and health care access. Journal of Health Economics, 39, 159–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Iversen, T., & Lurås, H. (2011). Patient switching in general practice. Journal of Health Economics, 30, 894–903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Iversen, T., & Ma, C-t. (2011). Market conditions and general practitioners’ referrals. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, 11, 245–265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kornai, J. (1979). Resource-constrained versus demand-constrained systems. Econometrica, 47, 802–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Lysdahl, K. B., Hofmann, B. M., & Ansgar Espeland, A. (2010). Radiologists’ responses to inadequate referrals. European Radiology, 20, 1227–1233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Sørensen, R. J., & Grytten, J. (2003). Service production and contract choice in primary physician services. Health Policy, 66, 73–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Management and Health EconomicsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations