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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Production and operations management 2018-06, Vol.27 (6), p.999-1020
Hauptverfasser: Andritsos, Dimitrios A., Tang, Christopher S.
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