Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Summary of reviewed articles reporting effects on health expenditure growth, efficiency, and equity

From: Effects of mixed provider payment systems and aligned cost sharing practices on expenditure growth management, efficiency, and equity: a structured review of the literature

Article Effects Author
Country Year Type of provider payment mix Methods Data HE growth Efficiency Equity
Australia 2015 Cost sharing (rebates) Qualitative analysis In-depth patient interviews    + Foster & Mitchell [57]
FFS-PFC blended payment    +
Austria, Denmark, France, Germany 2016 FFS-PFC blended payment Difference-in-differences analysis Panel cost data 0    Tsiachristas et al. [27]
Austria, Germany 2012 FFS-PFC blended payment Case study Published literature, DISMEVAL project + + / 0   Nolte et al. [47]
Belgium, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States 2012 Bundled payment Systematic review Published literature + (hospital, ambulatory)- (outpatient, post-acute) +   Hussey et al. [19]
Canada 2011 CAP-PFP blended payment Policy analysis Published literature, semi-structured interviews with observers   + + Hutchison et al. [31]
FFS-PFP blended payment   +  
Canada 2015 FFS-CAP blended payment Nonlinear regression model Population-based administrative records    + Kiran et al. [33]
Canada 2015 FFS-PFP blended payment Cost analysis with propensity score matching Administrative records of costs and utilization by disease group + / - +   Hollander & Kadlec [28]
China 2010 FFS-CAP blended payment Systematic review Published literature, official documents 0    Yip et al. [26]
Pay-for-performance +   
Estonia, Portugal, United Kingdom 2016 CAP-PFP blended payment Difference-in-differences analysis Panel cost data + (administrative, hospital)    Tsiachristas et al. [27]
France 2016 FFS-PFP blended payment Difference-in-differences analysis Panel cost data + (administrative, hospital)    Tsiachristas et al. [27]
Germany 2010 Pay-for-coordination Multivariate regression analysis Cohort study of type 2 diabetes patients   +   Schafer et al. [67]
Germany 2010 Pay-for-coordination Cost analysis with propensity score matching Insurance claims records + +   Stock et al. [68]
Germany, Netherlands 2016 Bundled payment Difference-in-differences analysis Panel cost data + (outpatient)    Tsiachristas et al. [27]
Hungary CAP-PFC blended payment 0   
Netherlands 2012 Disease-based bundled payment Case study Published literature, DISMEVAL project 0    Nolte et al. [47]
Netherlands 2012 Disease-based bundled payment Multilevel, random effects meta-analysis model Individual patient data on performance indicators of processes and outcomes, DISMEVAL project   +   Elissen et al. [69]
Netherlands 2013 Disease-based bundled payment Case study Published literature, official documents + +   Froimson et al. [39]
Netherlands 2013 Disease-based bundled payment Qualitative analysis Semi-structured interviews with providers   + / -   Raaijmakers et al. [70]
Netherlands, Germany 2014 Disease-based bundled payment Case study Published literature, expert interviews    Busse & Stahl [56]
Shared savings +   
Thailand 2015 FFS-CAP blended payment Document review Official and grey documents, published literature + + + Tangcharoensathien et al. [24]
United Kingdom 2009 Pay-for-performance Multivariate logistic regression analysis Cross-sectional surveys   + + Millett et al. [71]
United States 1995 Episode-based bundled payment Case study Narrative +    Edmonds & Hallman [36]
United States 2007 Pay-for-performance Descriptive analysis Aggregated patient data + +   Casale et al. [72]
United States 2012 Pay-for-coordination Systematic review Peer-reviewed studies, published reports +    Basu et al. [73]
United States 2013 Episode-based bundled payment Case study Document review 0    Chambers et al. [45]
United States 2014 Bundled payment (varied) Issue brief Document review + +   Bachrach et al. [34]
United States 2014 Episode-based bundled payment Budget impact model Cost data from the US Renal Data System +    Liu et al. [42]
United States 2015 Episode-based bundled payment Case study Patient episode data + +   Doran & Zabinski [37]
United States 2015 Episode-based bundled payment Experimental comparison study Claims data + +   Froemke et al. [38]
United States 2015 Episode-based bundled payment Case study Claims data   +   Iorio [52]
United States 2015 Episode-based bundled payment Comparative descriptive analysis Acute care hospital participant data 0    Tsai et al. [48]
United States 2015 Episode-based bundled payment Descriptive analysis Patient and claims data, routine quality metrics + / 0 +   Whitcomb et al. [49]
United States 2015 Gainsharing Experimental comparison study Claims data + +   Froemke et al. [38]
United States 2015 Episode-based bundled payment Case study Narrative + +   Wagner [44]
Pay-for-performance + +  
Shared savings + +  
United States 2015 Shared savings Case study Narrative + +   Kuhn & Lehn [55]
United States 2016 Episode-based bundled payment Descriptive analysis Patient episode data + +   Bolz & Iorio [35]
United States 2016 Episode-based bundled payment Experimental comparison study Individual patient and episode reimbursement data 0 +   Courtney et al. [46]
United States 2016 Episode-based bundled payment Case study Narrative   +   Curry & Fee [50]
United States 2016 Episode-based bundled payment Descriptive analysis Medicare patient data + +   Iorio et al. [40]
United States 2016 Episode-based bundled payment Cohort cost identification study Insurance and commercial claims data + / 0    Kirby et al. [41]
United States 2016 Episode-based bundled payment Issue brief Narrative + +   Porter & Kaplan [43]
United States 2016 Episode-based bundled payment Decision model with sensitivity analysis Bundled payment claims data for patients discharged to rehabilitation and home   +   Slover et al. [53]
United States 2016 Patient-based bundled payment Conceptual framework development synthesizing experiences from 6 cases Published literature, official documents   +   Conrad et al. [51]
Shared savings   +  
  1. Note: (+) indicates improvements in indicator; (−) indicates worsening of indicator; (−/+) indicates mixed results; (0) indicates no changes and/or unclear findings; (+/0) indicates improvements reported, but with uncertain attribution to payment model of interest; empty indicates that this aspect was not studied. CAP = capitation; DRGs = diagnosis-related groups; EHR = electronic health record; FFS = fee-for-service; HE = health expenditure; PFC = pay-for-coordination; PFP = pay-for-performance