MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7009940953

Four Essays in Health Economics

2019· dissertation· en· W7009940953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapitationPaymentIncentiveReferralPrimary careHealth careQuality (philosophy)Payment system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis addresses health-policy relevant questions regarding quantity and quality of service delivery in primary healthcare using health administrative data from the province of Ontario. It is comprised of four chapters that explore the following questions: (1) What is the impact of switching from an enhanced fee-for-service (EFFS) payment model to a blended capitation payment model on the specialist referral rates of primary care physicians? (2) What are the rates of inappropriate laboratory testing in the province of Ontario? (3) What are the costs and determinants (physician and practice characteristics) of these inappropriate tests? (4) What is the impact of primary care payment structure on the quantity (number and cost) and the quality (appropriateness) of clinical laboratory testing? Fee-for-service (FFS) payment systems give physicians an incentive to treat patients on the margin of being referred, whereas in capitation systems physicians do not have a financial incentive to treat such marginal patients. Chapter 1 empirically examines how these two payment systems affect referral rates. The results show an increase in specialist visits upon a switch from an EFFS model to a blended capitation model when the physician is listed as the referring physician in the data, but no change in total specialist visits for these physicians’ patients. This change is not observed immediately upon switching payment models. Physicians paid by blended capitation who practice in an interdisciplinary health team have fewer specialist visits per rostered patient compared to EFFS physicians, despite an increase in their patients’ specialist visits after joining the interdisciplinary team. Using a definition of inappropriateness that quantifies ordering clinical laboratory tests too often or too soon following a previous test, Chapter 2 examines the rates of inappropriate laboratory testing for nine selected analytes in Ontario. The chapter finds that the percentage of inappropriate tests ranges from 6% to 20%. Moreover, between 60% and 85% of the time, the physician ordering an inappropriate test is the same physician who ordered the previous test. The findings also show that specialists are more likely than primary care physicians to order repeat tests too soon. Chapter 3 examines the costs and determinants associated with the rates of inappropriate laboratory utilization. The associated costs of inappropriate/redundant laboratory testing for the selected analytes ranges between 6 – 20% of the total cost of each test. Statistical analyses of the association of physician and practice characteristics with inappropriate testing are done using a logit model. Conditional upon the variables within the model, male physicians, physicians trained outside of Canada, older physicians, and a younger patient population are all shown to be associated with less inappropriate testing. Primary care physicians in group practices and in payment models with pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives are less likely to order inappropriate tests and specialist physicians are twice as likely to order inappropriately compared to FFS primary care physicians. Differences in physician, practice and patient characteristics, however, explain only a small amount of the variation in inappropriate utilization. Chapter 4 examines how physicians’ laboratory test ordering patterns change following a switch from an FFS payment model enhanced with P4P to a blended capitation payment model, and the differences in ordering patterns between traditional staffing and interdisciplinary teams within the blended capitation model. Using a propensity score weighted fixed-effects specification to address selection, the chapter estimates that a mandatory switch to capitation would lead to an average of 3% fewer laboratory requisitions per patient. Patients’ laboratory utilization also becomes more concentrated with the rostering physician. More importantly, using diabetes-related laboratory tests as a case study, physicians order 3% fewer inappropriate/redundant tests after joining the blended model and 9% fewer if they joined an interdisciplinary care team within the blended model.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→