初级保健提供者如何应对报销削减?来自初级保健激励计划终止的证据。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Christopher S Brunt
{"title":"初级保健提供者如何应对报销削减?来自初级保健激励计划终止的证据。","authors":"Christopher S Brunt","doi":"10.1177/10775587221139516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":"80 3","pages":"303-317"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Do Primary Care Providers Respond to Reimbursement Cuts? Evidence From the Termination of the Primary Care Incentive Program.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher S Brunt\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10775587221139516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51127,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Care Research and Review\",\"volume\":\"80 3\",\"pages\":\"303-317\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Care Research and Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587221139516\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Care Research and Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587221139516","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

初级保健奖励支付计划(PCIP)为2011年至2015年符合条件的初级保健提供者(pcp)的评估和管理(E&M)访问提供10%的奖金。本研究使用2012年至2017年连续合格的pcp(治疗组)和历史上提供类似收费服务的不合格专家(对照组)的样本,首次研究了pcp如何应对该计划的终止。使用治疗加权差中差的逆概率模型(该模型控制了提供者特定受益人特征的跨时间变化、个体提供者固定效应和邮政编码按年份固定效应),研究发现,提供者对取消10%的奖金支付的反应是将符合E&M相对价值单位(RVUs)的奖金支付增加3.7%。这一反应与供应商诱导的需求一致,并表明46%的抵消反应与医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心在评估报销减少时的精算假设一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Do Primary Care Providers Respond to Reimbursement Cuts? Evidence From the Termination of the Primary Care Incentive Program.

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.

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
Medical Care Research and Review
Medical Care Research and Review 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
4.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Care Research and Review (MCRR) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal containing critical reviews of literature on organizational structure, economics, and the financing of health and medical care systems. MCRR also includes original empirical and theoretical research and trends to enable policy makers to make informed decisions, as well as to identify health care trends. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 25 days
×
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