Competition and physician behaviour: Does the competitive environment affect the propensity to issue sickness certificates?

Who benefits from quality competition in health care? A theory and a laboratory experiment on the relevance of patient characteristics

We study how competition between physicians affects the provision of medical care. In our theoretical model, physicians are faced with a heterogeneous patient population, in which patients systematically vary with regard to both their responsiveness to the provided quality of care and their state of health. We test the behavioral predictions derived from this model in a controlled laboratory experiment. In line with the model, we observe that competition significantly improves patient benefits as long as patients are able to respond to the quality provided. For those patients, who are not able to choose a physician, competition even decreases the patient benefit compared to a situation without competition. This decrease is in contrast to our theoretical prediction implying no change in benefits for passive patients. Deviations from patient-optimal treatment are highest for passive patients in need of a low quantity of medical services. With repetition, both, the positive effects of competition for active patients as well as the negative effects of competition for passive patients become more pronounced. Our results imply that competition can not only improve but also worsen patient outcome and that patients' responsiveness to quality is decisive.

Exploring differences between public and private providers in primary care: findings from a large Swedish region

This study contributes to the sparse literature on differences between public and private primary care practices (PCCs). The purpose was to explore if differences in performance and characteristics between public and PCCs persist over time in a welfare market with patient choice and provider competition, where public and private providers operate under similar conditions. The analysis is based on data from a national patient survey and administrative registries in a large Swedish region, covering PCC observations in 2010 and 2019, i.e., the year after and 10 years after introducing choice and competition in the region. The findings suggest that differences across owner types tend to decrease over time in welfare markets. Differences in patients' experiences, PCC size, patient mix and the division of labour have decreased or disappeared between 2010 and 2019. There were small but significant differences in process measures of quality in 2019; public PCCs complied better with prescription guidelines. While the results demonstrate a convergence between public and private PCCs in regards to their characteristics and performance, differences in patients' experiences in regards to socioeconomic conditions persisted. Such unwarranted variation calls for continued attention from policy makers and further research about causes.

What is the effect of independent medical evaluation on days on sickness benefits for long-term sick listed employees in Norway? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial, the NIME-trial

Background

Independent medical evaluations are used to evaluate degree and reason for work disability, uncertainty around the functional status, and/or the employee’s rehabilitation potential in several jurisdictions, but not in Norway. The main aim of this trial was to test the return to work effect of independent medical evaluation (IME) (summoning and consultation) compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in Norway, for workers who have been on continuous sick leave for 6 months.

Methods

This was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial including all employees aged 18–65 years, sick-listed by their general practitioner and on full or partial sick leave for the past 26 weeks in Hordaland County, Norway in 2015/16. Trial candidates were drawn from a central register at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration at 22 weeks of sick leave. Pregnant women, individuals with cancer or dementia diagnoses, those with secret address, employed by NAV or sick listed by the specialist health services were excluded. Separate regression analyses were conducted to investigate the “intention-to-treat” and “treatment on the treated” effects, using the ordinary least squares and instrumental variable methods, respectively.

Results

After exemption based on predefined exclusion criteria, 5888 individuals were randomised to either IME (n = 2616) or TAU (n = 2599). The final intervention group constitutes 1698 individuals, of which 937 attended the IME consultation. No baseline differences were found between the IME and TAU group regarding gender, age, and previous sick leave. Individuals attending the IME were older than those who cancelled the appointment ((47/45), p = 0.006) and those who did not show up without cancelling ((47/42), p < 0.001). Mainly the IME physician agreed with the regular GP upon level of sick leave. In cases with different assessments, the difference tended to be towards a lower sick leave level. There were no intention to treat or treatment on the treated effect on days of sick leave after randomisation during follow up.

Conclusions

Overall, the analyses showed no effect of IME on changes in sick leave for sick listed employees. This result was consistent for those who were offered an IME consultation (intention to treat) and those who undertook an IME consultation (treatment on the treated).

Trial registration

ClinicalTirals.gov trial number NCT02524392 first registration 14.08.2015.

Patient choice, entry, and the quality of primary care: Evidence from Swedish reforms

Policies aiming to spur quality competition among health care providers are ubiquitous, but their impact on quality is ex ante ambiguous, and credible empirical evidence is lacking in many contexts. This study contributes to the sparse literature on competition and primary care quality by examining recent competition enhancing reforms in Sweden. The reforms aimed to stimulate patient choice and entry of private providers across the country but affected markets differently depending on the initial market structure. We exploit the heterogeneous impact of the reforms in a difference-in-differences strategy, contrasting more and less exposed markets over the period 2005-2013. Although the reforms led to substantially more entry of new providers in more exposed markets, the effects on primary care quality were modest: We find small improvements of patients' overall satisfaction with care, but no consistently significant effects on avoidable hospitalisation rates or satisfaction with access to care. We find no evidence of economically meaningful quality reductions on any outcome measure.