How Do Primary Care Providers Respond to Reimbursement Cuts? Evidence From the Termination of the Primary Care Incentive Program

被引:2
|
作者
Brunt, Christopher S. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Georgia Southern Univ, Statesboro, GA USA
[2] Georgia Southern Univ, Chair Econ, Dept Econ, POB 8153, Statesboro, GA 30458 USA
关键词
Medicare Part B; fee-for-service; offsetting; supplier-induced demand; PHYSICIAN RESPONSE; MEDICARE; VOLUME; HEALTH; REDUCTIONS; SYSTEMS; MODELS; IMPACT; WILL;
D O I
10.1177/10775587221139516
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
The Primary Care Incentive Payment Program (PCIP) provided a 10% bonus payment for Evaluation and Management (E&M) visits for eligible primary care providers (PCPs) from 2011 to 2015. Using a 2012 to 2017 sample of continuously eligible PCPs (the treatment group) and ineligible specialists with historically similar provision of billed services (the control group), this study is the first to examine how PCPs responded to the program's termination. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted difference-in-differences models that control for inter-temporal changes in provider-specific beneficiary characteristics, individual provider fixed effects, and zip code by year fixed effects, it finds that providers responded to the removal of the 10% bonus payments by increasing their billing of bonus payment eligible E&M relative value units (RVUs) by 3.7%. This response is consistent with supplier-induced demand and suggests a 46% offsetting response consistent with actuarial assumptions by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services when assessing reimbursement reductions.
引用
收藏
页码:303 / 317
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] How primary care providers might review evidence on hydration
    Kolasa, Kathryn M.
    Lackey, Carolyn J.
    Weismiller, David G.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF NUTRITION, 2007, 26 (05) : 570S - 574S
  • [2] How do primary care providers and autistic adults want to improve their primary care? A Delphi-study
    Warreman, Eva B.
    Ester, Wietske A.
    Geurts, Hilde M.
    Vermeiren, Robert R. J. M.
    Nooteboom, Laura A.
    AUTISM, 2024, 28 (02) : 449 - 460
  • [3] Competition, Capitation, and Coding: Do Public Primary Care Providers Respond to Increased Competition?
    Dackehag, Margareta
    Ellegard, Lina Maria
    CESIFO ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2019, 65 (04) : 402 - 423
  • [4] Do Incentive Payments Reward The Wrong Providers? A Study Of Primary Care Reform In Ontario, Canada
    Glazier, Richard H.
    Green, Michael E.
    Frymire, Eliot
    Kopp, Alex
    Hogg, William
    Premji, Kamila
    Kiran, Tara
    HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2019, 38 (04) : 624 - 632
  • [5] How do primary care providers screen for developmental delays?: A national survey
    Sices, L
    Feudtner, C
    McLaughlin, J
    Drotar, D
    Williams, MA
    PEDIATRIC RESEARCH, 2003, 53 (04) : 71A - 71A
  • [6] Medicare's Primary Care Incentive Payment Program
    DiSantostefano, Jan
    JNP-JOURNAL FOR NURSE PRACTITIONERS, 2012, 8 (04): : 328 - 329
  • [7] How to do primary care research
    Malope, Sebaka
    AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE & FAMILY MEDICINE, 2020, 12 (01)
  • [8] Incentives for primary care providers to participate in a collaborative care program for depression
    Feldman, MD
    Areán, PA
    Ong, MK
    Lee, DL
    Feldmann, S
    PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, 2005, 56 (11) : 1344 - 1346
  • [9] Primary Care Providers' Perspectives on the Ontario eConsult Program
    Liddy, Clare
    Sethuram, Claire
    Mihan, Ariana
    Moroz, Isabella
    Keely, Erin
    TELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH, 2021, 27 (09) : 1039 - 1045
  • [10] Cancer Survivorship Care: How Primary Care Providers Perceive Their Role
    Robinson, P. A.
    Rychlik, K.
    Mumby, P.
    Lo, S.
    Albain, K.
    Friend, P.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2009, 69 (24) : 558S - 558S