Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026
Do all respond alike? A difference-in-differences analysis of how GPs' financial motivation impacted contacts when the COVID-19 pandemic hit Denmark.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yordanov Dimitar, Pedersen Line Bjørnskov, Gyrd-Hansen Dorte, Oxholm Anne Sophie
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic raised an immediate need for remote access to health care. Danish policymakers therefore introduced fees for remote contacts in general practice. The GPs could charge a fee for video consultations and for a regular consultation performed over the telephone, which was a higher fee than for a standard telephone consultation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether GPs' financial motivation impacted changes in contacts in general practice when the pandemic hit.
METHODS: We combine unique survey data on GPs' financial motivation from 2019 (before the pandemic) with rich register data on their practices' reimbursed contacts and other characteristics from 2015 to 2020 (the first year of the pandemic). Using a difference-in-differences framework, we estimate whether practices with more financially motivated GPs responded differently to the pandemic.
RESULTS: We find that practices with more financially motivated GPs tend to provide relatively more contacts per patient in response to the pandemic. In some months, an increase in financial motivation of 0.1 (on the motivation scale from 0 to 1) yields 2.9 to 5.6 additional contacts per 1000 enlisted patients. This is driven by a more frequent use of the new fees for remote contacts. We also find indication of some substitution from low- to high-fee telephone contacts.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that using remote fees to appeal to GPs' financial motivation may have created inequity in access to care when the pandemic hit. Policymakers should therefore also consider other ways to motivate GPs to ensure equitable care delivery.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether GPs' financial motivation impacted changes in contacts in general practice when the pandemic hit.
METHODS: We combine unique survey data on GPs' financial motivation from 2019 (before the pandemic) with rich register data on their practices' reimbursed contacts and other characteristics from 2015 to 2020 (the first year of the pandemic). Using a difference-in-differences framework, we estimate whether practices with more financially motivated GPs responded differently to the pandemic.
RESULTS: We find that practices with more financially motivated GPs tend to provide relatively more contacts per patient in response to the pandemic. In some months, an increase in financial motivation of 0.1 (on the motivation scale from 0 to 1) yields 2.9 to 5.6 additional contacts per 1000 enlisted patients. This is driven by a more frequent use of the new fees for remote contacts. We also find indication of some substitution from low- to high-fee telephone contacts.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that using remote fees to appeal to GPs' financial motivation may have created inequity in access to care when the pandemic hit. Policymakers should therefore also consider other ways to motivate GPs to ensure equitable care delivery.