The Impact of Reimbursement Policy on Social Welfare, Revisit Rate, and Waiting Time in a Public Healthcare System: Fee-for-Service Versus Bundled Payment

被引:98
作者
Guo, Pengfei [1 ]
Tang, Christopher S. [2 ]
Wang, Yulan [1 ]
Zhao, Ming [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Fac Business, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Anderson Sch Management, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[3] Univ Elect Sci & Technol China, Sch Econ & Management, Chengdu 610054, Sichuan, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
healthcare operations; fee-for-service; bundled payment; queueing; OPERATIONS; COMPETITION; CONTRACTS; HOSPITALS; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1287/msom.2017.0690
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
This paper examines the impact of two reimbursement schemes, fee-for-service and bundled payment, on the social welfare, the patient revisit rate, and the patient waiting time in a public healthcare system. The two schemes differ on the payment mechanism: under the fee-for-service scheme, the healthcare provider receives the payment each time a patient visits (or revisits) whereas, under the bundled payment scheme, the healthcare provider receives a lump sum payment for the entire episode of care regardless of how many revisits a patient incurs. By considering the quality-speed trade-off (i.e., a higher service speed reduces service quality, resulting in a higher revisit rate), we examine a three-stage Stackelberg game to determine the patients' initial visit rate, the service provider's service rate (which affects the revisit rate), and the funder's reimbursement rate. This analysis enables us to compare the equilibrium outcomes (social welfare, revisit rate, and waiting time) associated with the two payment schemes. We find that when the patient pool size is large, the bundled payment scheme dominates the fee-for-service scheme in terms of higher social welfare and a lower revisit rate, whereas the fee-forservice scheme prevails in terms of shorter waiting time. When the patient pool is small, the bundle payment scheme dominates the fee-for-service scheme in all three performance measures.
引用
收藏
页码:154 / 170
页数:17
相关论文
共 62 条
[1]   Maximal Accessibility Network Design in the Public Sector [J].
Aboolian, Robert ;
Berman, Oded ;
Verter, Vedat .
TRANSPORTATION SCIENCE, 2016, 50 (01) :336-347
[2]   Bundled Payment vs. Fee-for-Service: Impact of Payment Scheme on Performance [J].
Adida, Elodie ;
Mamani, Hamed ;
Nassiri, Shima .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2017, 63 (05) :1606-1624
[3]   Diagnostic Accuracy Under Congestion [J].
Alizamir, Saed ;
de Vericourt, Francis ;
Sun, Peng .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2013, 59 (01) :157-171
[4]   Quality-Speed Conundrum: Trade-offs in Customer-Intensive Services [J].
Anand, Krishnan S. ;
Pac, M. Fazil ;
Veeraraghavan, Senthil .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2011, 57 (01) :40-56
[5]   Incentive Programs for Reducing Readmissions when Patient Care is Co-Produced [J].
Andritsos, Dimitrios A. ;
Tang, Christopher S. .
PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2018, 27 (06) :999-1020
[6]   Introducing competition in healthcare services: The role of private care and increased patient mobility [J].
Andritsos, Dimitrios A. ;
Tang, Christopher S. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2014, 234 (03) :898-909
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2014, The Guardian
[8]   On Hospice Operations Under Medicare Reimbursement Policies [J].
Ata, Baris ;
Killaly, Bradley L. ;
Olsen, Tava Lennon ;
Parker, Rodney P. .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2013, 59 (05) :1027-1044
[9]  
Augenstein S, 2012, NEW JERSEY REAL 0203
[10]  
Australian Government Department of Health, 2015, PRIM HLTH CAR ADV GR