[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v263y2020ics0277953620305037.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient chosen gap payments in primary care: Predictions of patient acceptability, uptake and willingness to pay from a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Epstein, D.S.
  • Barton, C.
  • Mazza, D.
  • Woode, M.E.
  • Mortimer, D.
Abstract
Compulsory co-payments limit access and may compromise quality in primary care. Patient Chosen Gap Payments (PCGPs) allow patients to specify a (voluntary) out-of-pocket contribution, creating an incentive for patient-centred care without the need for complex outcomes-based funding formulae. It is not yet known if widespread use of PCGP services is consistent with consumer preferences. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in a sample of the adult Australian general population (n = 1457) during April 2019 to simulate patient choice between alternative primary care services and describe preferences for PCGP services. Participants also completed a supplementary valuation task in which participants reported their intended PCGP contribution for PCGP services. Finally, we conducted policy-simulations to predict market shares when PCGP clinics operate alongside the two existing models of primary care funding in Australia. Results suggest that patients prefer shorter wait time, longer consults, lower compulsory copayments, services with higher patient satisfaction ratings, choice of doctor and $0 suggested voluntary contribution for PCGP services. Policy-simulations suggest that high-quality PCGP services could obtain market share of up to 39% and voluntary contributions of up to $25.36 per service (95%CI: $10.24, $40.47), potentially adding $1.48 billion AUD in revenues and funding for primary care at no cost to government. Low-quality PCGP services are unlikely to capture significant market share and PCGP contributions were lowest for low-quality PCGP services ($12.12, 95%CI: $2.09, $26.34). Further field testing is recommended where (i) patients make consequential choices (e.g. real payments for simulated services), and (ii) dynamic effects on quality of care and utilisation can be observed; particularly in vulnerable populations. We conclude that PCGP services aligned with patient preferences could capture significant market share and substantially increase revenue to general practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Epstein, D.S. & Barton, C. & Mazza, D. & Woode, M.E. & Mortimer, D., 2020. "Patient chosen gap payments in primary care: Predictions of patient acceptability, uptake and willingness to pay from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:263:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620305037
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620305037
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113284?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deb, Partha & Trivedi, Pravin K., 2002. "The structure of demand for health care: latent class versus two-part models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 601-625, July.
    2. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    3. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    4. Biørn, Erik & Godager, Geir, 2010. "Does quality influence choice of general practitioner? An analysis of matched doctor-patient panel data," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 842-853, July.
    5. Rita Santos & Hugh Gravelle & Carol Propper, 2017. "Does Quality Affect Patients’ Choice of Doctor? Evidence from England," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(600), pages 445-494, March.
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    7. Richard D. Smith, 2006. "It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 281-293, March.
    8. Megha Swami & Hugh Gravelle & Anthony Scott & Jenny Williams, 2018. "Hours worked by general practitioners and waiting times for primary care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1513-1532, October.
    9. Ben-Ner, Avner & Putterman, Louis & Kong, Fanmin & Magan, Dan, 2004. "Reciprocity in a two-part dictator game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 333-352, March.
    10. Duckett, Stephen, 2018. "Expanding the breadth of Medicare: learning from Australia," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3-4), pages 344-368, July.
    11. Eijkenaar, Frank & Emmert, Martin & Scheppach, Manfred & Schöffski, Oliver, 2013. "Effects of pay for performance in health care: A systematic review of systematic reviews," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 115-130.
    12. Lien Nguyen & Unto Häkkinen, 2006. "Choices and utilization in dental care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(2), pages 99-106, June.
    13. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gachter & Georg Kirchsteiger, 1997. "Reciprocity as a Contract Enforcement Device: Experimental Evidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 833-860, July.
    14. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    15. Tor Iversen & Hilde Lurås, 2012. "Capitation and Incentives in Primary Care," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 26, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    17. Johnson, Jennifer Wiggins & Cui, Annie Peng, 2013. "To influence or not to influence: External reference price strategies in pay-what-you-want pricing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 275-281.
    18. Isaac, R. Mark & P. Lightle, John & A. Norton, Douglas, 2015. "The pay-what-you-want business model: Warm glow revenues and endogenous price discrimination," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 215-223.
    19. Frew, Emma J. & Wolstenholme, Jane L. & Whynes, David K., 2004. "Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 289-298, June.
    20. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2016. "The role of the payment vehicle in non-market valuations of a health care service: willingness-to-pay for an ambulance helicopter service," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oedingen, Carina & Bartling, Tim & Schrem, Harald & Mühlbacher, Axel C. & Krauth, Christian, 2021. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    2. Gerpott Torsten J., 2016. "A review of the empirical literature on Pay-What-You-Want price setting," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 11(4), pages 566-596, December.
    3. Cameron, Lachlan & Ride, Jemimah, 2023. "The role of mental health in online gambling decisions: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    4. Wendelin Schnedler & Nina Lucia Stephan, 2020. "Revisiting a Remedy Against Chains of Unkindness," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 72(3), pages 347-364, July.
    5. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato, 2019. "Analysis of the Factors that Influence Olive Oil Demand in the Veneto Region (Italy)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Lisette Ibanez & Sébastien Roussel, 2022. "The impact of nature video exposure on pro-environmental behavior: An experimental investigation," Post-Print hal-03847453, HAL.
    7. Regner, Tobias & Barria, Javier A., 2009. "Do consumers pay voluntarily? The case of online music," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 395-406, August.
    8. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    9. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    10. Shimelis Araya Geda & Rainer Kühl, 2021. "Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Preferences for Climate-Smart Seed Innovations: Empirical Evidence from Southern Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    12. Engel, Christoph & Goerg, Sebastian J., 2018. "If the worst comes to the worst: Dictator giving when recipient’s endowments are risky," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 51-70.
    13. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    14. Panos, Georgios & Theodossiou, Ioannis, 2009. "Union Mediation and Adaptation to Reciprocal Loyalty Arrangements," MPRA Paper 15471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Genie, Mesfin G. & Nicoló, Antonio & Pasini, Giacomo, 2020. "The role of heterogeneity of patients’ preferences in kidney transplantation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    16. Talevi, Marta & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Das, Ipsita & Lewis, Jessica J. & Singha, Ashok K., 2022. "Speaking from experience: Preferences for cooking with biogas in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    17. Björn Bartling & Roberto A. Weber & Lan Yao, 2015. "Do Markets Erode Social Responsibility?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 219-266.
    18. Anell, Anders & Dietrichson, Jens & Ellegård, Lina Maria & Kjellsson, Gustav, 2021. "Information, switching costs, and consumer choice: Evidence from two randomised field experiments in Swedish primary health care," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    19. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    20. Godager , Geir & Scott, Anthony, 2023. "Physician Behavior and Health Outcomes," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2023:3, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:263:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620305037. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.