Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 615–624 | Cite as

User Fees in General Practice: Willingness to Pay and Potential Substitution Patterns—Results from a Danish GP Patient Survey

  • Christian KronborgEmail author
  • Line Bjørnskov Pedersen
  • Anders Fournaise
  • Christel Nøhr Kronborg
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Increases in public expenditures to general practitioner (GP) services and specialist care have spurred debate over whether to implement user fees for healthcare services such as GP consultations in Denmark.

Objective

The objective of this study was to examine Danish patients’ attitudes towards user fees and their willingness to pay (WTP) for a consultation, and to investigate how user charges may impact patients’ behaviour.

Methods

A questionnaire survey was conducted in a GP clinic.

Results

A total of 343 individual persons answered the questionnaire. One hundred and seventy (50%) persons were not willing to pay for a consultation. Among patients reporting positive WTP values, the mean WTP was 137 (standard deviation 140) Danish kroner (DKK). Patients who were 65 years old or older were more likely to be willing to pay for a GP consultation than patients under the age of 65 years. Furthermore, patients with a personal annual income of more than 200,000 DKK were more likely to be willing to pay for a consultation than other income groups. With respect to patients with a positive WTP value, their own assessment of the seriousness of the consultation and their self-assessed health influenced the amount they would be willing to pay. Finally, we observed a stated willingness to substitute GP consultations with alternatives that are free of charge.

Conclusion

About half of the patients with an appointment for a GP consultation are willing to pay for the consultation. User charges may potentially influence the patients’ behaviour.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01784731.

Keywords

Moral Hazard User Charge Payment Card Hypothetical Bias General Practitioner Visit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design, development of the questionnaire, data analysis, drafting and revision of the article, and have approved the final version of the article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

The study was financed by the University of Southern Denmark.

Conflict of interest

Three of the authors (Christian Kronborg, Line Bjørnskov Pedersen and Anders Fournaise) are employees at the University of Southern Denmark. Christel Nøhr Kronborg is the co-owner of the clinic in which the data for the study were collected.

Ethics approval

The Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark did not find that the project needed permission from their committee, cf. section 14, subsection 1 in the Act on Research Ethics Review of Health Research Projects (in Danish: Lov om videnskabsetisk behandling af sundhedsvidenskabelige forskningsprojekter, Lov nr. 593 af 14/06/2011, http://www.retsinformation.dk). The study was approved by the Danish Data Agency (2013-41-1429). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01784731).

Consent to participate

All participants were informed about the objective of the study, that it was voluntary to participate and that they could withdraw their consent to participate at any time. All participants provided written informed consent.

Supplementary material

40258_2017_325_MOESM1_ESM.docx (97 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 96 kb)
40258_2017_325_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 14 kb)
40258_2017_325_MOESM3_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 21 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Pauly MV. Economics of moral hazard: reply. Am Econ Rev. 1968;58(3):531–7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zweifel P, Manning WG. Moral hazard and consumer incentives in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2000. p. 410–59.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mooney G. Key issues in health economics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf; 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pedersen KM, Christiansen T, Bech M. The Danish health care system: evolution, not revolution, in a decentralized system. Health Econ. 2005;14:S41–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Dijk CE, van den Berg B, Verheij RA, et al. Moral hazard and supplier-induced demand: empirical evidence in general practice. Health Econ. 2013;22(3):340–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schreyögg J, Grabka MM. Copayments for ambulatory care in Germany: a natural experiment using a difference-in-difference approach. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(3):331–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robinson R. User charges for health care. In: Mossialos E, Dixon A, Figueras J, Kutzin J, editors. Funding health care: options for Europe. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Det Økonomiske Råd. Dansk økonomi, forår 2000. Copenhagen: Det Økonomiske Råd; 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Velfærdskommissionen. Fremtidens velfærd: vores valg. Ministry of Finance; 2005. Available from: Ahttps://www.fm.dk/publikationer/velfaerdskommissionen/2008/rapporter-fra-velfaerdskommissionen/analyserapport. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  10. 10.
    Det Etiske Råd. Etik og prioritering i sundhedsvæsenet: hvorfor er det så svært? Det Etiske Råd; 2013. Available from: http://www.etiskraad.dk/~/media/Etisk-Raad/Etiske-Temaer/Sundhedsvaesenet/Publikationer/2013-04-13-etik-prioritering-sundhedsvaesenet.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  11. 11.
    Manning WG, Newhouse JP, Duan N, et al. Health-insurance and the demand for medical-care: evidence from a randomized experiment. Am Econ Rev. 1987;77(3):251–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Poulsen CA. Introducing out-of-pocket payment for general practice in Denmark: feasibility and support. Health Policy. 2014;117(1):64–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schokkaert E, Van de Voorde C. User charges. In: Glied S, Smith PC, editors. Oxford handbook of health economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aron-Dine A, Einav L, Finkelstein A. The RAND health insurance experiment, three decades later. J Econ Perspect. 2013;27(1):197–222.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Layte R, Nolan A, McGee H, O’Hanlon A. Do consultation charges deter general practitioner use among older people? A natural experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(8):1432–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pedersen S, Pedersen C, Damgaard Pedersen NE, Pedersen PA. Den overenskomstløse periode 1.10.1984-6.1.1985 i en almen praksis. [In Danish: The contract-free period at a Danish general practice from 1 October 1984 to 6 January 1985]. Ugeskrift for Laeger. 1988;150(51):3190–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sygesikringens Forhandlingsudvalg. Økonomisk og statistisk redegørelse for konflikten på landsoverenskomsten om almen lægegerning 1. oktober 1984 til 5. januar 1985. Amtsrådsforeningen; 1985.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pedersen KM. Viden om effekten af brugerbetaling i almen praksis og lægevagten. Centre of Health Economics Research. Odense: Syddansk Universitet; 2013.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wolthers OD, Stellfeld M. Skadestuehenvendelser i en periode med patientbetaling for lægeydelser i almen praksis. [In Danish: Consultations in a casualty department during a period when direct payment was required for consultation in general practice]. Ugeskr Laeger. 1986;148(16):975–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pedersen LB, Jarbøl DE. Præferencer for brugerbetaling i almen praksis og nedsættelse i yderkantsområder [In Danish: Preferences for user fees in general practice and the establishment of general practitioners in rural areas]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2012;174(3):2940–3.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pedersen KM, Andersen JS, Søndergaard J. General practice and primary health care in Denmark. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(Suppl. 1):S34–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Christensen A, Søgaard R. Determinants for employer-paid health insurance coverage: a population-based study of the Danish labour force. Scand J Public Health. 2013;41:597–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bateman I. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jonas DE, Russell LB, Chou J, Pignone M. Willingness-to-pay to avoid the time spent and discomfort associated with screening colonoscopy. Health Econ. 2010;19(10):1193–211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Donaldson C, Jones AM, Mapp TJ, Olson JA. Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care. Appl Econ. 1998;30(5):667–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wooldridge JM. Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. UK: South-Western College Publishing; 2000.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Statistics Denmark. SYGP: number of persons with contacts covered by public health insurance by region, type of benefits, age, sex and socioeconomic status. 2016. Available from: http://statistikbanken.dk. Accessed 4 Nov 2016.
  28. 28.
    Donfouet HPP, Mahieu PA, Malin E. Using respondents’ uncertainty scores to mitigate hypothetical bias in community-based health insurance studies. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(2):277–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ozdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009;28(4):894–901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Statistics Denmark. SYGK: contacts covered by the public health insurance by region, type of benefits, age, sex and socioeconomic status. 2016. Available from: http://statistikbanken.dk. Accessed 4 Nov 2016.
  31. 31.
    Statistics Denmark. FOLK1: population at the first day of the quarter by municipality, sex, age, marital status, ancestry, country of origin and citizenship. 2014. Available from: http://statistikbanken.dk. Accessed 4 Nov 2016.
  32. 32.
    Holmes TP, Kramer RA. An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag. 1995;29(1):121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Southern Denmark, Centre of Health Economics Research (COHERE)Odense MDenmark
  2. 2.Research Unit for General PracticeUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense CDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Cross-sectorial CollaborationRegion of Southern DenmarkVejleDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Geriatric MedicineOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  5. 5.Lægerne NyenstadNyborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations