List size disequilibria and service provision in general practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5617/njhe.10196Keywords:
General practice, payment schemes, fee-for-service, capitation, mixed schemes, inequality in healthAbstract
Abstract: Several Nordic countries remunerate general practice by a mix of capitation and fee-for-service. From the literature we know that capitation-based payments come with a risk of undersupply of services, whereas fee-for-service comes with a risk of overprovision of services. Previous studies from the Nordic countries assess potential overprovision of services in general practices that are falling short of enlisted patients. However, today the main challenge in general practice is physician shortages, which comes with a risk of underprovision of services. Little is known about whether physician shortage in fact leads to underprovision of services. Using the two-way Mundlak regression on a panel of Danish general practices in 2016-17, this study assesses whether holding a longer than preferred patient list is associated with fewer services per enlisted patient. Around 100 of our sample of 1,652 practices hold longer lists than preferred. These practices have on average an excess of around 80 patients per full time general practitioner. We find little support of the hypothesis that practices with longer than preferred lists provide fewer contacts per patient. Heterogeneity analyses, however, reveal that practices with longer lists tend to provide fewer services to patients with complex needs. Policymakers should therefore be aware that there may be underprovision of services to high-need patients when there is a shortage of GPs.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.