与顺序护理提供者签订合同。

IF 2.7 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Sverre Grepperud, Pål Andreas Pedersen
{"title":"与顺序护理提供者签订合同。","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":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11660844/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11660844/pdf/\",\"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}","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

摘要

背景:关于护理协调的文献指出,机构碎片化和护理不协调导致服务成本高、质量低和消费者不满。目的:在这项工作中,我们关注的是财政激励(报销计划)可能在促进协调护理中发挥的作用,当提供者沿着护理路径有序组织,客户(患者)从一个护理人员转移到另一个护理人员。方法:应用博弈论框架,分析三家医疗服务提供者在成本外部性和利他性患者偏好方面存在相互依赖关系的情况。结果:对于基于活动的合同,成本控制的激励是有效的(内部效率),而质量提供的激励是低效的,这是由于融资成本、不完全利他主义、外部性和战略行为导致的偏好失调和协调不力。最优的基于成本的合同是混合合同,根据供应商在生产链中的位置而不同,它们由以下三个要素组成:(i)固定预算,(ii)根据生产链跟随者的治疗成本支付(综合处罚),以及(iii)根据提供者自己的治疗成本支付(积极或消极的成本分担)。对于这些契约,提供者通常在内部效率低下,而与偏好偏差和不良协调相关的效率低下得到了解决。结论:与单一供应商的方法相比,我们的生产链观点增强了基于成本的合同的吸引力,而不是纯粹的前瞻性合同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contracting with sequential care providers.

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.

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
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信