Association between fee-for-service expenditures and morbidity burden in primary care
- 463 Downloads
In primary care, fee-for-services (FFS) tariffs are often based on political negotiation rather than costing systems. The potential for comprehensive measures of patient morbidity to explain variation in negotiated FFS expenditures has not previously been examined.
To examine the relative explanatory power of morbidity measures and related general practice (GP) clinic characteristics in explaining variation in politically negotiated FFS expenditures.
We applied a multilevel approach to consider factors that explain FFS expenditures among patients and GP clinics. We used patient morbidity characteristics such as diagnostic markers, multimorbidity casemix adjustment based on resource utilisation bands (RUB) and related GP clinic characteristics for the year 2010. Our sample included 139,527 patients visiting GP clinics.
Out of the individual expenditures, 31.6 % were explained by age, gender and RUB, and around 18 % were explained by RUB. Expenditures increased progressively with the degree of resource use (RUB0–RUB5). Adding more patient-specific morbidity measures increased the explanatory power to 44 %; 3.8–9.4 % of the variation in expenditures was related to the GP clinic in which the patient was treated.
Morbidity measures were significant patient-related FFS expenditure drivers. The association between FFS expenditure and morbidity burden appears to be at the same level as similar studies in the hospital sector, where fees are based on average costing. However, our results indicate that there may be room for improvement of the association between politically negotiated FFS expenditures and morbidity in primary care.
KeywordsGeneral practice Expenditure variation Resource utilisation band (RUB) Fee-for-services (FFS) The Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups® (ACG®) system
JEL ClassificationD61 H51 I120 I180
We are grateful for comments from two anonymous referees and from participants at the Nordic Health Economist’s Study Group Meeting, NHSG2012, Kuopio, Finland and the PCSI 2012 Avignon 28th Patient Classification System International Conference.
- 8.Aguado, A., Guino, E., Mukherjee, B., Sicras, A., Serrat, J., Acedo, M., et al.: Variability in prescription drug expenditures explained by adjusted clinical groups (ACG) case-mix: a cross-sectional study of patient electronic records in primary care. BMC Health Serv. Res. 8, 53 (2008). doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-53. Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/8/53 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Zielinski, A., Kronogard, M., Lenhoff, H., Halling, A.: Validation of ACG case-mix for equitable resource allocation in Swedish primary health care. BMC Public Health 9, 347 (2009). doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-347. Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/347 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Olejaz, M., Juul Nielsen, A., Rudkjøbing, A., Okkels Birk, H., Krasnik, A., Hernández-Ouevedo, C.: Denmark: health system review. Health Syst. Transit. 14(2), 1–192 (2012)Google Scholar
- 16.Rigsrevisionen: Beretning til Statsrevisorerne om aktiviteter og udgifter i praksis-sektoren. Ministeriet for Sundhed og Forebyggelse. August 2012 http://www.rigsrevisionen.dk/media(2323,1030)/17-2011.pdf
- 22.The Health Services Research & Development Center at The Johns Hopkins University. The Johns Hopkins ACG® system, Technical Reference Guide Version 9.0. The Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD (December 2009)Google Scholar
- 24.WONCA: International classification of primary care. ICPC-2-R, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
- 33.Long, J.S., Ervin, L.H.: Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. Am. Stat. 54, 217–224 (2000)Google Scholar
- 34.Schroll, H., Christensen, R.D., Thomsen, J.L., Andersen, M., Friborg, S., Sondergaard, J.: The Danish model for improvement of diabetes care in general practice: impact of automated collection and feedback of patient data. Int. J. Fam. Med. 2012, 208123 (2012)Google Scholar
- 35.Sicras-Mainar, A., Velasco–Velasco, S., Navarro-Artieda, R., Prados-Torres, A., Bolibar-Ribas, B., Violan-Fors, C.: Adaptive capacity of the Adjusted Clinical Groups Case-Mix System to the cost of primary healthcare in Catalonia (Spain): a observational study. BMJ Open. 2, e000941 (2012). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000941
- 36.Engstrom, S.G., Carlsson, L., Ostgren, C.J., Nilsson, G.H., Borgquist, L.A.: The importance of comorbidity in analysing patient costs in Swedish primary care. BMC Public Health 6, 36 (2006). doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-36. Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/36 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar