初级保健是其他医疗保健的替代还是补充?来自医疗补助计划的证据

Q3 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Forum for Health Economics and Policy Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI:10.1515/fhep-2018-0032
Jiajia Chen, Eunkyung van den Berghe, R. Kaestner
{"title":"初级保健是其他医疗保健的替代还是补充?来自医疗补助计划的证据","authors":"Jiajia Chen, Eunkyung van den Berghe, R. Kaestner","doi":"10.1515/fhep-2018-0032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is widely believed that Medicaid reimbursement for primary care is too low and that these low fees adversely affect access to healthcare for Medicaid recipients. In this article, we exploit changes in Medicaid physician fees for primary care to study the response of primary care visits and services that are complements/substitutes with primary care, including emergency department, hospitalization, prescription drugs, and imaging. Results from our study indicate that higher Medicaid fees for primary care have modest effects. Among non-blind and non-disabled adults, we find that a 25% (or $10) increase in Medicaid fees for primary care is associated with approximately a 5% of a standard deviation increase in the number of primary care visits. For the same group, we also find that the fee increase is associated with an increase in the probability of having any primary care visits of approximately 3 percentage points. For children, changes in Medicaid fees are not significantly related to the number of primary care visits. In terms of other types of care, we find some evidence that Medicaid fees for primary care are associated with prescription drug use, and no evidence that primary care fees are associated with the use of emergency department, inpatient services, or imaging. Overall, our evidence provides, at best, limited support for the large effects of Medicaid fees on service provision sometimes asserted in policy discussions.","PeriodicalId":38039,"journal":{"name":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Primary Care A Substitute or Complement for Other Medical Care? Evidence from Medicaid\",\"authors\":\"Jiajia Chen, Eunkyung van den Berghe, R. Kaestner\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/fhep-2018-0032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract It is widely believed that Medicaid reimbursement for primary care is too low and that these low fees adversely affect access to healthcare for Medicaid recipients. In this article, we exploit changes in Medicaid physician fees for primary care to study the response of primary care visits and services that are complements/substitutes with primary care, including emergency department, hospitalization, prescription drugs, and imaging. Results from our study indicate that higher Medicaid fees for primary care have modest effects. Among non-blind and non-disabled adults, we find that a 25% (or $10) increase in Medicaid fees for primary care is associated with approximately a 5% of a standard deviation increase in the number of primary care visits. For the same group, we also find that the fee increase is associated with an increase in the probability of having any primary care visits of approximately 3 percentage points. For children, changes in Medicaid fees are not significantly related to the number of primary care visits. In terms of other types of care, we find some evidence that Medicaid fees for primary care are associated with prescription drug use, and no evidence that primary care fees are associated with the use of emergency department, inpatient services, or imaging. Overall, our evidence provides, at best, limited support for the large effects of Medicaid fees on service provision sometimes asserted in policy discussions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forum for Health Economics and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forum for Health Economics and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2018-0032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2018-0032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

人们普遍认为,医疗补助对初级保健的报销太低,这些低费用对医疗补助接受者获得医疗保健产生不利影响。在这篇文章中,我们利用医疗补助计划初级保健医生费用的变化来研究初级保健就诊和初级保健补充/替代服务的反应,包括急诊科、住院、处方药和成像。我们的研究结果表明,提高初级保健医疗补助费用的影响不大。在非盲人和非残疾成年人中,我们发现初级保健医疗补助费用每增加25%(或10美元),初级保健就诊次数就会增加约5%的标准差。对于同一组,我们还发现,费用增加与任何初级保健就诊的可能性增加约3个百分点有关。对于儿童,医疗补助费用的变化与初级保健就诊次数没有显著关系。就其他类型的护理而言,我们发现一些证据表明,初级保健的医疗补助费用与处方药使用有关,而没有证据表明初级保健费用与急诊室、住院服务或成像的使用有关。总的来说,我们的证据最多只能有限地支持有时在政策讨论中断言的医疗补助费用对服务提供的巨大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Is Primary Care A Substitute or Complement for Other Medical Care? Evidence from Medicaid
Abstract It is widely believed that Medicaid reimbursement for primary care is too low and that these low fees adversely affect access to healthcare for Medicaid recipients. In this article, we exploit changes in Medicaid physician fees for primary care to study the response of primary care visits and services that are complements/substitutes with primary care, including emergency department, hospitalization, prescription drugs, and imaging. Results from our study indicate that higher Medicaid fees for primary care have modest effects. Among non-blind and non-disabled adults, we find that a 25% (or $10) increase in Medicaid fees for primary care is associated with approximately a 5% of a standard deviation increase in the number of primary care visits. For the same group, we also find that the fee increase is associated with an increase in the probability of having any primary care visits of approximately 3 percentage points. For children, changes in Medicaid fees are not significantly related to the number of primary care visits. In terms of other types of care, we find some evidence that Medicaid fees for primary care are associated with prescription drug use, and no evidence that primary care fees are associated with the use of emergency department, inpatient services, or imaging. Overall, our evidence provides, at best, limited support for the large effects of Medicaid fees on service provision sometimes asserted in policy discussions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forum for Health Economics and Policy
Forum for Health Economics and Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: Forum for Health Economics & Policy (FHEP) showcases articles in key substantive areas that lie at the intersection of health economics and health policy. The journal uses an innovative structure of forums to promote discourse on the most pressing and timely subjects in health economics and health policy, such as biomedical research and the economy, and aging and medical care costs. Forums are chosen by the Editorial Board to reflect topics where additional research is needed by economists and where the field is advancing rapidly. The journal is edited by Katherine Baicker, David Cutler and Alan Garber of Harvard University, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Dana Goldman of the University of Southern California and RAND Corporation, Neeraj Sood of the University of Southern California, Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson of University of Chicago, Pinar Karaca Mandic of the University of Minnesota, and John Romley of the University of Southern California. FHEP is sponsored by the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. A subscription to the journal also includes the proceedings from the National Bureau of Economic Research''s annual Frontiers in Health Policy Research Conference. Topics: Economics, Political economics, Biomedical research and the economy, Aging and medical care costs, Nursing, Cancer studies, Medical treatment, Others related.
期刊最新文献
Optimal Taxation of Cigarettes and E-Cigarettes: Principles for Taxing Reduced-Harm Tobacco Products. Self-Reported Mental Health and the Demand for Mental Health Care After a Labor Market Shock: Evidence from the Spanish Great Recession. California Hospitals' Rapidly Declining Traditional Medicare Operating Margins. Benefits of Adopting by Reference Portions of Clinical Protocols. Frontmatter
×
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