Incentive Programs for Reducing Readmissions when Patient Care is Co‐Produced
To reduce preventable readmissions, many healthcare systems are transitioning from fee‐for‐service (FFS) to other reimbursement schemes such as pay‐for‐performance (P4P) or bundled payment (BP) so that the funder of a healthcare system can transfer to the hospital some of the financial risks associa...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Production and operations management 2018-06, Vol.27 (6), p.999-1020 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1020 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 999 |
container_title | Production and operations management |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | Andritsos, Dimitrios A. Tang, Christopher S. |
description | To reduce preventable readmissions, many healthcare systems are transitioning from fee‐for‐service (FFS) to other reimbursement schemes such as pay‐for‐performance (P4P) or bundled payment (BP) so that the funder of a healthcare system can transfer to the hospital some of the financial risks associated with patient rehospitalizations. To examine the effectiveness of different schemes (FFS, P4P, and BP), we develop a “health co‐production” model in which the patient's readmissions can be “jointly controlled” by the efforts exerted by both the hospital and the patient. Our analysis of the equilibrium outcomes reveals that FFS cannot entice the hospital and the patient to exert readmission‐reduction efforts. Relative to BP, we find that P4P is more effective in reducing readmissions over a wider range of scenarios. However, BP tends to be more effective in keeping lower combined patient costs and funder payments to the hospital. Finally, we find that some patient cost‐sharing can be optimal for the funder under both P4P and BP. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/poms.12847 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2058557650</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1111_poms.12847</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2058557650</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4237-c3eb6fa18cd98d547210e1f73259075f3735af3ea03e5fa8197609d7669aba863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KAzEUhYMoWKsbnyDgQhCmJpPJZLKU4k-h0uLPOqQzNzWlM6lJa-nOR_AZfRJTR9GFeDf3Lr5z7uEgdExJj8Y5X7g69GhaZGIHdahkIuGS57vxJlwmNBPFPjoIYUYIESwlHTQaNCU0S_sCeOzd1Os6YOM8voNqVdpmGg9d1TYE65qA10_Q4LFe2ijBfe0B24D77v31LYqjAKpDtGf0PMDR1-6ix6vLh_5NMhxdD_oXw6TM0piqZDDJjaZFWcmi4plIKQFqYiYuieCGCca1YaAJA250QaXIiaxEnks90UXOuuik9V1497yCsFQzt_JNfKlSwgvORc5JpM5aqvQuBA9GLbyttd8oStS2MLUtTH0WFmHcwlC6xoZfaCbTgkjCIkJbZG3nsPnHTI1Ht_fftqetJugp_KT8I8AH4jOFPw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2058557650</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Incentive Programs for Reducing Readmissions when Patient Care is Co‐Produced</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Andritsos, Dimitrios A. ; Tang, Christopher S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Andritsos, Dimitrios A. ; Tang, Christopher S.</creatorcontrib><description>To reduce preventable readmissions, many healthcare systems are transitioning from fee‐for‐service (FFS) to other reimbursement schemes such as pay‐for‐performance (P4P) or bundled payment (BP) so that the funder of a healthcare system can transfer to the hospital some of the financial risks associated with patient rehospitalizations. To examine the effectiveness of different schemes (FFS, P4P, and BP), we develop a “health co‐production” model in which the patient's readmissions can be “jointly controlled” by the efforts exerted by both the hospital and the patient. Our analysis of the equilibrium outcomes reveals that FFS cannot entice the hospital and the patient to exert readmission‐reduction efforts. Relative to BP, we find that P4P is more effective in reducing readmissions over a wider range of scenarios. However, BP tends to be more effective in keeping lower combined patient costs and funder payments to the hospital. Finally, we find that some patient cost‐sharing can be optimal for the funder under both P4P and BP.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1059-1478</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-5956</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/poms.12847</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>bundled payment ; co‐productive services ; Hospital administration ; hospital readmissions ; Patient admissions ; Pay for performance ; Reimbursement</subject><ispartof>Production and operations management, 2018-06, Vol.27 (6), p.999-1020</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors</rights><rights>2018 Production and Operations Management Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4237-c3eb6fa18cd98d547210e1f73259075f3735af3ea03e5fa8197609d7669aba863</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4237-c3eb6fa18cd98d547210e1f73259075f3735af3ea03e5fa8197609d7669aba863</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/poms.12847$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/poms.12847$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,21800,27905,27906,43602,43603,45555,45556</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Andritsos, Dimitrios A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Christopher S.</creatorcontrib><title>Incentive Programs for Reducing Readmissions when Patient Care is Co‐Produced</title><title>Production and operations management</title><description>To reduce preventable readmissions, many healthcare systems are transitioning from fee‐for‐service (FFS) to other reimbursement schemes such as pay‐for‐performance (P4P) or bundled payment (BP) so that the funder of a healthcare system can transfer to the hospital some of the financial risks associated with patient rehospitalizations. To examine the effectiveness of different schemes (FFS, P4P, and BP), we develop a “health co‐production” model in which the patient's readmissions can be “jointly controlled” by the efforts exerted by both the hospital and the patient. Our analysis of the equilibrium outcomes reveals that FFS cannot entice the hospital and the patient to exert readmission‐reduction efforts. Relative to BP, we find that P4P is more effective in reducing readmissions over a wider range of scenarios. However, BP tends to be more effective in keeping lower combined patient costs and funder payments to the hospital. Finally, we find that some patient cost‐sharing can be optimal for the funder under both P4P and BP.</description><subject>bundled payment</subject><subject>co‐productive services</subject><subject>Hospital administration</subject><subject>hospital readmissions</subject><subject>Patient admissions</subject><subject>Pay for performance</subject><subject>Reimbursement</subject><issn>1059-1478</issn><issn>1937-5956</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM1KAzEUhYMoWKsbnyDgQhCmJpPJZLKU4k-h0uLPOqQzNzWlM6lJa-nOR_AZfRJTR9GFeDf3Lr5z7uEgdExJj8Y5X7g69GhaZGIHdahkIuGS57vxJlwmNBPFPjoIYUYIESwlHTQaNCU0S_sCeOzd1Os6YOM8voNqVdpmGg9d1TYE65qA10_Q4LFe2ijBfe0B24D77v31LYqjAKpDtGf0PMDR1-6ix6vLh_5NMhxdD_oXw6TM0piqZDDJjaZFWcmi4plIKQFqYiYuieCGCca1YaAJA250QaXIiaxEnks90UXOuuik9V1497yCsFQzt_JNfKlSwgvORc5JpM5aqvQuBA9GLbyttd8oStS2MLUtTH0WFmHcwlC6xoZfaCbTgkjCIkJbZG3nsPnHTI1Ht_fftqetJugp_KT8I8AH4jOFPw</recordid><startdate>201806</startdate><enddate>201806</enddate><creator>Andritsos, Dimitrios A.</creator><creator>Tang, Christopher S.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Blackwell Publishers Inc</general><scope>OQ6</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201806</creationdate><title>Incentive Programs for Reducing Readmissions when Patient Care is Co‐Produced</title><author>Andritsos, Dimitrios A. ; Tang, Christopher S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4237-c3eb6fa18cd98d547210e1f73259075f3735af3ea03e5fa8197609d7669aba863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>bundled payment</topic><topic>co‐productive services</topic><topic>Hospital administration</topic><topic>hospital readmissions</topic><topic>Patient admissions</topic><topic>Pay for performance</topic><topic>Reimbursement</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Andritsos, Dimitrios A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Christopher S.</creatorcontrib><collection>ECONIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Production and operations management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Andritsos, Dimitrios A.</au><au>Tang, Christopher S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Incentive Programs for Reducing Readmissions when Patient Care is Co‐Produced</atitle><jtitle>Production and operations management</jtitle><date>2018-06</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>999</spage><epage>1020</epage><pages>999-1020</pages><issn>1059-1478</issn><eissn>1937-5956</eissn><abstract>To reduce preventable readmissions, many healthcare systems are transitioning from fee‐for‐service (FFS) to other reimbursement schemes such as pay‐for‐performance (P4P) or bundled payment (BP) so that the funder of a healthcare system can transfer to the hospital some of the financial risks associated with patient rehospitalizations. To examine the effectiveness of different schemes (FFS, P4P, and BP), we develop a “health co‐production” model in which the patient's readmissions can be “jointly controlled” by the efforts exerted by both the hospital and the patient. Our analysis of the equilibrium outcomes reveals that FFS cannot entice the hospital and the patient to exert readmission‐reduction efforts. Relative to BP, we find that P4P is more effective in reducing readmissions over a wider range of scenarios. However, BP tends to be more effective in keeping lower combined patient costs and funder payments to the hospital. Finally, we find that some patient cost‐sharing can be optimal for the funder under both P4P and BP.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1111/poms.12847</doi><tpages>22</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1059-1478 |
ispartof | Production and operations management, 2018-06, Vol.27 (6), p.999-1020 |
issn | 1059-1478 1937-5956 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2058557650 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Business Source Complete; SAGE Complete A-Z List |
subjects | bundled payment co‐productive services Hospital administration hospital readmissions Patient admissions Pay for performance Reimbursement |
title | Incentive Programs for Reducing Readmissions when Patient Care is Co‐Produced |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T02%3A32%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Incentive%20Programs%20for%20Reducing%20Readmissions%20when%20Patient%20Care%20is%20Co%E2%80%90Produced&rft.jtitle=Production%20and%20operations%20management&rft.au=Andritsos,%20Dimitrios%20A.&rft.date=2018-06&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=999&rft.epage=1020&rft.pages=999-1020&rft.issn=1059-1478&rft.eissn=1937-5956&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/poms.12847&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2058557650%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2058557650&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1111_poms.12847&rfr_iscdi=true |