Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35790981›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2022

Effects of fee-for-service, diagnosis-related-group, and mixed payment systems on physicians' medical service behavior: experimental evidence.

Xing Li, Yue Zhang, Xinyuan Zhang, Xinyan Li, Xing Lin, Youli Han

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Looking inside the lab: a systematic literature review of economic experiments in health service provision.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xing LiSchool of Public Health, Capital Medical University, No.10 Xitoutiao, Youanmenwai Street, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100069, China.
Yue ZhangSchool of Public Health, Capital Medical University, No.10 Xitoutiao, Youanmenwai Street, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100069, China.
Xinyuan ZhangSchool of Public Health, Capital Medical University, No.10 Xitoutiao, Youanmenwai Street, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100069, China.
Xinyan LiSchool of Public Health, Capital Medical University, No.10 Xitoutiao, Youanmenwai Street, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100069, China.
Xing LinSchool of Public Health, Capital Medical University, No.10 Xitoutiao, Youanmenwai Street, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100069, China.
Youli HanSchool of Public Health, Capital Medical University, No.10 Xitoutiao, Youanmenwai Street, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100069, China. hanyouli@ccmu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare reforms in many countries have shown a movement from pure payment systems to mixed payment systems. However, there remains an insufficient understanding of how to design better mixed payment systems and how such systems, especially Diagnosis-Related-Group (DRG)-based systems, benefit patients. We therefore designed a controlled laboratory experiment to investigate the effects of fee-for-service (FFS), DRG, and mixed payment systems on physicians' service provision.

methodsA total of 210 medical students were recruited from Capital Medical University as subjects. They, in the role of physicians, were randomly divided into seven groups and chose the quantity of medical services for different patient types under pure FFS, pure DRG, or mixed payment schemes that included two FFS-based mixed payment schemes and three DRG-based mixed payment schemes. There were five rounds of each group of experiments, and each subject made 18 decisions per round. The quantity of medical services provided by subjects were collected. And relevant statistics were computed and analyzed by nonparametric tests and random effects model.

resultsThe results showed that the physicians' overprovision (underprovision) of services under FFS (DRG) schemes decreased under mixed payment schemes, resulting in higher benefit to patients under mixed payment schemes. Patients' health conditions also affected physicians' behavior but in different directions. Higher disease severity was associated with higher deviation of physicians' quantity choices from the optimal quantity under DRG and DRG-based mixed payment schemes, while the opposite was found for FFS and FFS-based mixed payment schemes.

conclusionsMixed payment systems are a better way to balance physicians' profit and patients' benefit. The design of mixed payment systems should be adjusted according to the patient's health conditions. When patients are in lower disease severity and resource consumption is relatively small, prospective payments or mixed systems based on prospective payments are more suitable. While for patients in higher disease severity, retrospective payments or mixed systems based predominantly on retrospective payments are better.

Indexed as

Fee-for-Service PlansPhysiciansDiagnosis-Related GroupsHealth Care ReformHumansRetrospective StudiesExperimental economicsMixed paymentPhysicians’ behavior

Identifiers

PMID35790981
PMCPMC9258053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.