Medicare fees and physicians’ medicare service volume: Beneficiaries treated and services per beneficiary
- 147 Downloads
Using merged physician survey and Medicare claims data, this study analyzes how fee levels, market factors, and financial incentives affect physicians’ fee-for-service Medicare service volume. We find that Medicare fees are positively related to both the number of beneficiaries treated (η = 0.12 to 0.61) and service intensity (η = 1.04–1.71). Physicians with apparent incentives to induce demand appear to manipulate the mix of services provided in order to increase the effective Medicare fee. Finally, several market factors appear to influence the quantity of Medicare services physicians provide. Results highlight limitations of the present system for compensating physicians in Medicare’s fee-for-service program.
KeywordsSupply response Service intensity Market factors Demand inducement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Center for Studying Health System Change. (2003). “Community Tracking Study 2000–2001. Physician Survey Summary File: User’s Guide and Codebook.” Technical Publication No. 51. Washington DC: Center for Studying Health System Change.Google Scholar
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2001). “Claims and Utilization Data,” available online at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/data/durg/clmutil.pdf, accessed May 26.
- Christensen, S. (1992). “Volume Responses to Exogenous Changes in Medicare’s Payment Policies.” Health Services Research 27(1), 65–79.Google Scholar
- Escarce, J. (1993b). “Effects of the Relative Fee Structure on the Use of Surgical Operations.” Health Services Research 28(4), 479–502.Google Scholar
- Fisher, E., D. Wennberg, T. Stukel, et al. (2003). “The Implications of Regional Variations in Medicare Spending. Part 1: The Content, Quality, and Accessibility of Care.” Annals of Internal Medicine 138(4), 273–287.Google Scholar
- Foote, S. B., R. Halpern, and D. Wholey. (2005). “Variation in Medicare’s Local Coverage Policies: Content Analysis of Local Medical Review Policies. ” American Journal of Managed Care 11(3), 181–187.Google Scholar
- GAO (Government Accountability Office). (2005). “Medicare Fee Schedule: Geographic Adjustment Indices Are Valid in Design, but Data and Methods Need Refinement.” Washington DC, Report No. GAO-05-119, March.Google Scholar
- Hackbarth, G. (2004). “Payment for Physicians’ Services in the Medicare Program. ” Testimony to the Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U. S. House of Representatives. May 5.Google Scholar
- Hadley, J., J. Mitchell, and J. Mandelblatt. (2001). “Medicare Fees and Small Area Variations in Breast Conserving Surgery among Elderly Women.” Medical Care Research and Review 58(3), 334–360.Google Scholar
- HCFA (Health Care Financing Administration) Office of the Actuary. (1998). “Physician Volume and Intensity Response.” August 13. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/actuary/physicianresponse/.
- Holahan, J, and S. Zuckerman. (1993). “The Future of Medicare Volume Performance Standards.” Inquiry 30(4), 235–248.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, H. (2005). “Letter to Glenn Hackbarth, Chair, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.” Center for Medicare Management, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dept. of Health and Human Services, March 31.Google Scholar
- MedPAC (Medicare Payment Advisory Commission). (2005a). “Physician Services.” Chapter 2B in Report to the Congress. March.Google Scholar
- MedPAC (Medicare Payment Advisory Commission). (2005b). “Physician Services.” Chapter 9 in Report to the Congress: Issues in a Modernized Medicare Program. June.Google Scholar
- MedPAC. (2004). “Purchasing Strategies.” Chapter 4 in Report to the Congress: New Approaches in Medicare. June.Google Scholar
- MedPAC. (2003a). “Growth and Variation in Use of Physician Services.” Chapter 4 in Report to the Congress: Variation and Innovation in Medicare. June.Google Scholar
- MedPAC. (2003b). “Geographic Practice Cost Indexes.” www.medpac.gov/publications/other_reports/Aug03_GPCI_2pgrKH.pdf.
- MedPAC (Medicare Payment Advisory Commission). (2001). Report to the Congress. March.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, J. and J. Cromwell. (1995). “Impact of Medicare Payment Reductions on Access to Surgical Services.” Health Services Research 30(5), 637–655.Google Scholar
- Mitchell J., J. Hadley, D. Sulmasy, and G. Bloche. (2000). “Measuring the Effects of Managed Care on Physicians’ Perceptions of Their Financial Incentives.” Inquiry 37, 134–45.Google Scholar
- Nguyen, N. and F. Derrick. (1997). “Physician Behavioral Response to a Medicare Price Reduction.” Health Services Research 32(3), 283–298.Google Scholar
- Reschovsky, J., J. Hadley and B. Landon. (2004). “The Effects of Compensation Methods and Practice Structure on Physicians’ Perceived Incentives to Reduce or Increase Services to Patients.” Unpublished manuscript, Washington DC: Center for Studying Health System Change.Google Scholar
- Rice, T. (1983). “The Impact of Changing Medicare Reimbursement Rates on Physician-Induced Demand.” Medical Care 21(8), 803–815.Google Scholar
- Rice, T. and N. McCall. (1982). “Changes in Medicare Reimbursement in Colorado: Impact on Physicians’ Economic Behavior.” Health Care Financing Review 3(4), 67–86.Google Scholar
- Staiger, D. and J. Stock. (1997). “Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments.” Econometica 65(3), 557–586.Google Scholar
- Super, N. (2003). “The Geography of Medicare: Explaining Differences in Payments and Costs.” National Health Policy Forum Issue Brief No. 792. July 3.Google Scholar
- Wennberg, J., E. Fisher, and J. Skinner. (2003). “Geography and the Debate over Medicare Reform.” Health Affairs Web Exclusive. May 29. (http://www.healthaffairs.org/WebExclusives/Wennberg_Web_Excl_021302.htm).
- Zuckerman, S., J. McFeeters, P. Cunningham, and L. Nichols. (2004). “Changes in Medicaid Physician Fees, 1998–2003.” Health Affairs Web Exclusive: W4-374-384. June 23.Google Scholar
- Zuckerman, S., S. Norton, and D. Virilli. (1998). “Price Controls and Medicare Spending: Assessing the Volume Offset Assumption.” Medical Care Research and Review 55(4), 457–478.Google Scholar