Contracting with sequential care providers.

IF 2.7 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Health Economics Review Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1186/s13561-024-00572-w
Sverre Grepperud, Pål Andreas Pedersen
{"title":"Contracting with sequential care providers.","authors":"Sverre Grepperud, Pål Andreas Pedersen","doi":"10.1186/s13561-024-00572-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The literature on care coordination refers to high service costs, low quality, and consumer dissatisfaction, as the consequences of institutional fragmentation and uncoordinated care.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In this work we are concerned with the role financial incentives (reimbursement schemes) might play in promoting coordinated care when providers are organized sequentially along a care pathway and the clients (patients) are transferred from one caregiver to another.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We apply a game-theoretic framework to analyze the situation where three providers provide services to a patient group and there are interdependencies between the providers in terms of cost-externalities and altruistic patient preferences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For activity-based contracts, the incentives for cost containment are efficient (internal efficiency), while the incentives for quality provision are inefficient due to preference misalignments and poor coordination that derive from funding costs, imperfect altruism, the presence of externalities and strategic behavior. The optimal cost-based contracts are mixed contracts that vary across providers according to their position in the production chain, and they consist of the following three elements; (i) fixed budgets, (ii) payments contingent upon the treatment costs of production chain followers (integrated penalties), and (iii) payments contingent upon the providers' own treatment costs (positive or negative cost-sharing). For these contracts, the providers are typically internally inefficient, while the inefficiencies associated with preference misalignments and poor coordination are solved.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our production chain perspective, when compared to single-provider approaches, enhances the appeal of cost-based contracts relative to pure prospective contracts.</p>","PeriodicalId":46936,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Review","volume":"14 1","pages":"103"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-024-00572-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The literature on care coordination refers to high service costs, low quality, and consumer dissatisfaction, as the consequences of institutional fragmentation and uncoordinated care.

Objectives: In this work we are concerned with the role financial incentives (reimbursement schemes) might play in promoting coordinated care when providers are organized sequentially along a care pathway and the clients (patients) are transferred from one caregiver to another.

Methods: We apply a game-theoretic framework to analyze the situation where three providers provide services to a patient group and there are interdependencies between the providers in terms of cost-externalities and altruistic patient preferences.

Results: For activity-based contracts, the incentives for cost containment are efficient (internal efficiency), while the incentives for quality provision are inefficient due to preference misalignments and poor coordination that derive from funding costs, imperfect altruism, the presence of externalities and strategic behavior. The optimal cost-based contracts are mixed contracts that vary across providers according to their position in the production chain, and they consist of the following three elements; (i) fixed budgets, (ii) payments contingent upon the treatment costs of production chain followers (integrated penalties), and (iii) payments contingent upon the providers' own treatment costs (positive or negative cost-sharing). For these contracts, the providers are typically internally inefficient, while the inefficiencies associated with preference misalignments and poor coordination are solved.

Conclusions: Our production chain perspective, when compared to single-provider approaches, enhances the appeal of cost-based contracts relative to pure prospective contracts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.20%
发文量
59
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Economics Review is an international high-quality journal covering all fields of Health Economics. A broad range of theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy with a health economic focus will be considered for publication. Its scope includes macro- and microeconomics of health care financing, health insurance and reimbursement as well as health economic evaluation, health services research and health policy analysis. Further research topics are the individual and institutional aspects of health care management and the growing importance of health care in developing countries.
期刊最新文献
A scoping review of COVID-19 economic response policies in the MENA countries: lessons learned for Iran for future pandemics. Determinants of the economic burden of ART on the Italian NHS: insights from the Lombardy region. An analysis of factors influencing technical efficiency of health expenditures in China. Contracting with sequential care providers. Effect of health shocks on the absenteeism magnitude at work in Togo: is health insurance a mitigating factor?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1