Sorting into payment schemes and medical treatment: A laboratory experiment

A new look at physicians' responses to financial incentives: Quality of care, practice characteristics, and motivations

There is considerable controversy about what causes (in)effectiveness of physician performance pay in improving the quality of care. Using a behavioral experiment with German primary-care physicians, we study the incentive effect of performance pay on service provision and quality of care. To explore whether variations in quality are based on the incentive scheme and the interplay with physicians' real-world profit orientation and patient-regarding motivations, we link administrative data on practice characteristics and survey data on physicians' attitudes with experimental data. We find that, under performance pay, quality increases by about 7pp compared to baseline capitation. While the effect increases with the severity of illness, the bonus level does not significantly affect the quality of care. Data linkage indicates that primary-care physicians in high-profit practices provide a lower quality of care. Physicians' other-regarding motivations and attitudes are significant drivers of high treatment quality.

Looking inside the lab: a systematic literature review of economic experiments in health service provision

Experimental economics is, nowadays, a well-established approach to investigate agents' behavior under economic incentives. In the last decade, a fast-growing number of studies have focused on the application of experimental methodology to health policy issues. The results of that stream of literature have been intriguing and strongly policy oriented. However, those findings are scattered between different health-related topics, making it difficult to grasp the overall state-of-the-art. Hence, to make the main contributions understandable at a glance, we conduct a systematic literature review of laboratory experiments on the supply of health services. Of the 1248 articles retrieved from 2011, 56 articles published in peer-review journals have met our inclusion criteria. Thus, we have described the experimental designs of each of the selected papers and we have classified them according to their main area of interest.

Who benefits from quality competition in health care? A theory and a laboratory experiment on the relevance of patient characteristics

We study how competition between physicians affects the provision of medical care. In our theoretical model, physicians are faced with a heterogeneous patient population, in which patients systematically vary with regard to both their responsiveness to the provided quality of care and their state of health. We test the behavioral predictions derived from this model in a controlled laboratory experiment. In line with the model, we observe that competition significantly improves patient benefits as long as patients are able to respond to the quality provided. For those patients, who are not able to choose a physician, competition even decreases the patient benefit compared to a situation without competition. This decrease is in contrast to our theoretical prediction implying no change in benefits for passive patients. Deviations from patient-optimal treatment are highest for passive patients in need of a low quantity of medical services. With repetition, both, the positive effects of competition for active patients as well as the negative effects of competition for passive patients become more pronounced. Our results imply that competition can not only improve but also worsen patient outcome and that patients' responsiveness to quality is decisive.

Cream skimming and discrimination in access to medical care: A field experiment

This study measures the differences in access to healthcare for female patients in France in three medical specialties (dentistry, gynecology and psychiatry) according to two criteria: the African ethnicity of the patient and the benefit of having means-tested health insurance coverage. To this purpose, we conducted a nationally representative field experiment on more than 1500 physicians. We do not find substantial discrimination against the patient of African origin. However, the results indicate that patients with means-tested health insurance coverage are less likely to get an appointment. Differentiating between two types of coverage, we show that the lesser-known coverage (ACS) is more penalized than the other (CMU-C) as poor knowledge of the program increases the physician's expectation of additional administrative tasks and is an important element to explain cream-skimming. We also find that, for physicians who are free to set their fees, the opportunity cost of accepting a means-tested patient increases the penalty. Finally, the results suggest that enrollment in OPTAM, the controlled pricing practice option that incentivizes physicians to accept means-tested patients, reduces cream-skimming.

Exploring physician agency under demand-side cost sharing-An experimental approach

The assumption of patient-regarding physicians has been widely adopted in the health economics literature. Physicians' patient-regarding preferences are often described as the concern for the health benefits of medical treatments, and thus closely related to the norms and ethics of the medical profession. In this paper, we ask whether physicians' patient-regarding preferences include a concern for their patient's consumption opportunities alongside patient's health benefits. To identify and quantify physicians' preferences, we design and conduct an incentivized laboratory experiment where choices determine separately the health benefits and the consumption opportunities of a real patient admitted to the nearest hospital. We find strong evidence that future physicians care about their patients' consumption opportunities.

Performance Pay in Hospitals: An Experiment on Bonus-Malus Incentives

Recent policy reforms in Germany require the introduction of a performance pay component with bonus–malus incentives in the inpatient care sector. We conduct a controlled online experiment with real hospital physicians from public hospitals and medical students in Germany, in which we investigate the effects of introducing a performance pay component with bonus–malus incentives to a simplified version of the German Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) system using a sequential design with stylized routine cases. In both parts, participants choose between the patient optimal and profit maximizing treatment option for the same eight stylized routine cases. We find that the introduction of bonus–malus incentives only statistically significantly increases hospital physicians’ proportion of patient optimal choices for cases with high monetary baseline DRG incentives to choose the profit maximizing option. Medical students behave qualitatively similar. However, they are statistically significantly less patient oriented than real hospital physicians, and statistically significantly increase their patient optimal decisions with the introduction of bonus–malus incentives in all stylized routine cases. Overall, our results indicate that whether the introduction of a performance pay component with bonus–malus incentives to the (German) DRG system has a positive effect on the quality of care or not particularly depends on the monetary incentives implemented in the DRG system as well as the type of participants and their initial level of patient orientation.