Risk Selection and Cost Shifting in a Prospective Physician Payment System: Evidence from Ontario. Kantarevic, J. & Kralj, B. Health Policy. Paper doi abstract bibtex Abstract We study the risk-selection and cost-shifting behavior of physicians in a unique capitation payment model in Ontario, using the incentive to enrol and care for complex and vulnerable patients as a case study. This incentive, which is incremental to the regular capitation payment, ceases after the first year of patient enrollment and may therefore impact on the physician's decision to continue to enrol the patient. Furthermore, because the enrolled patients in Ontario can seek care from any provider, the enrolling physician may shift some treatment costs to other providers. Using longitudinal administrative data and a control group of physicians in the fee-for-service model who were eligible for the same incentive, we find no evidence of either patient ‘dumping’ or cost shifting. These results highlight the need to re-examine the conventional wisdom about risk selection for physician payment models that significantly deviate from the stylized capitation model.
@article{kantarevic_risk_????,
title = {Risk {Selection} and {Cost} {Shifting} in a {Prospective} {Physician} {Payment} {System}: {Evidence} from {Ontario}},
issn = {0168-8510},
shorttitle = {Risk {Selection} and {Cost} {Shifting} in a {Prospective} {Physician} {Payment} {System}},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013002698},
doi = {10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.10.002},
abstract = {Abstract
We study the risk-selection and cost-shifting behavior of physicians in a unique capitation payment model in Ontario, using the incentive to enrol and care for complex and vulnerable patients as a case study. This incentive, which is incremental to the regular capitation payment, ceases after the first year of patient enrollment and may therefore impact on the physician's decision to continue to enrol the patient. Furthermore, because the enrolled patients in Ontario can seek care from any provider, the enrolling physician may shift some treatment costs to other providers. Using longitudinal administrative data and a control group of physicians in the fee-for-service model who were eligible for the same incentive, we find no evidence of either patient ‘dumping’ or cost shifting. These results highlight the need to re-examine the conventional wisdom about risk selection for physician payment models that significantly deviate from the stylized capitation model.},
urldate = {2013-10-28},
journal = {Health Policy},
author = {Kantarevic, Jasmin and Kralj, Boris},
keywords = {Physician remuneration–primary care–risk selection–capitation–cream skimming},
file = {ScienceDirect Snapshot:files/47637/S0168851013002698.html:text/html;ScienceDirect Snapshot:files/47639/S0168851013002698.html:text/html}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"mRfqdErXzbeW6nETv","bibbaseid":"kantarevic-kralj-riskselectionandcostshiftinginaprospectivephysicianpaymentsystemevidencefromontario","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-09-09T06:27:32.612Z","title":"Risk Selection and Cost Shifting in a Prospective Physician Payment System: Evidence from Ontario","author_short":["Kantarevic, J.","Kralj, B."],"year":null,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://www.sfu.ca/~howlett/howlett16.bib","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Risk Selection and Cost Shifting in a Prospective Physician Payment System: Evidence from Ontario","issn":"0168-8510","shorttitle":"Risk Selection and Cost Shifting in a Prospective Physician Payment System","url":"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013002698","doi":"10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.10.002","abstract":"Abstract We study the risk-selection and cost-shifting behavior of physicians in a unique capitation payment model in Ontario, using the incentive to enrol and care for complex and vulnerable patients as a case study. This incentive, which is incremental to the regular capitation payment, ceases after the first year of patient enrollment and may therefore impact on the physician's decision to continue to enrol the patient. Furthermore, because the enrolled patients in Ontario can seek care from any provider, the enrolling physician may shift some treatment costs to other providers. Using longitudinal administrative data and a control group of physicians in the fee-for-service model who were eligible for the same incentive, we find no evidence of either patient ‘dumping’ or cost shifting. These results highlight the need to re-examine the conventional wisdom about risk selection for physician payment models that significantly deviate from the stylized capitation model.","urldate":"2013-10-28","journal":"Health Policy","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kantarevic"],"firstnames":["Jasmin"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kralj"],"firstnames":["Boris"],"suffixes":[]}],"keywords":"Physician remuneration–primary care–risk selection–capitation–cream skimming","file":"ScienceDirect Snapshot:files/47637/S0168851013002698.html:text/html;ScienceDirect Snapshot:files/47639/S0168851013002698.html:text/html","bibtex":"@article{kantarevic_risk_????,\n\ttitle = {Risk {Selection} and {Cost} {Shifting} in a {Prospective} {Physician} {Payment} {System}: {Evidence} from {Ontario}},\n\tissn = {0168-8510},\n\tshorttitle = {Risk {Selection} and {Cost} {Shifting} in a {Prospective} {Physician} {Payment} {System}},\n\turl = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013002698},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.10.002},\n\tabstract = {Abstract\nWe study the risk-selection and cost-shifting behavior of physicians in a unique capitation payment model in Ontario, using the incentive to enrol and care for complex and vulnerable patients as a case study. This incentive, which is incremental to the regular capitation payment, ceases after the first year of patient enrollment and may therefore impact on the physician's decision to continue to enrol the patient. Furthermore, because the enrolled patients in Ontario can seek care from any provider, the enrolling physician may shift some treatment costs to other providers. Using longitudinal administrative data and a control group of physicians in the fee-for-service model who were eligible for the same incentive, we find no evidence of either patient ‘dumping’ or cost shifting. These results highlight the need to re-examine the conventional wisdom about risk selection for physician payment models that significantly deviate from the stylized capitation model.},\n\turldate = {2013-10-28},\n\tjournal = {Health Policy},\n\tauthor = {Kantarevic, Jasmin and Kralj, Boris},\n\tkeywords = {Physician remuneration–primary care–risk selection–capitation–cream skimming},\n\tfile = {ScienceDirect Snapshot:files/47637/S0168851013002698.html:text/html;ScienceDirect Snapshot:files/47639/S0168851013002698.html:text/html}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Kantarevic, J.","Kralj, B."],"key":"kantarevic_risk_????","id":"kantarevic_risk_????","bibbaseid":"kantarevic-kralj-riskselectionandcostshiftinginaprospectivephysicianpaymentsystemevidencefromontario","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013002698"},"keyword":["Physician remuneration–primary care–risk selection–capitation–cream skimming"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["risk","selection","cost","shifting","prospective","physician","payment","system","evidence","ontario","kantarevic","kralj"],"keywords":["physician remuneration–primary care–risk selection–capitation–cream skimming"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["Bn7xRaKMY43f7hFwh"]}