Affiliation:
1. Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, USA
Abstract
The Primary Care Incentive Payment Program (PCIP) provided a 10% bonus payment for Evaluation and Management (E&M) visits for eligible primary care providers (PCPs) from 2011 to 2015. Using a 2012 to 2017 sample of continuously eligible PCPs (the treatment group) and ineligible specialists with historically similar provision of billed services (the control group), this study is the first to examine how PCPs responded to the program’s termination. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted difference-in-differences models that control for inter-temporal changes in provider-specific beneficiary characteristics, individual provider fixed effects, and zip code by year fixed effects, it finds that providers responded to the removal of the 10% bonus payments by increasing their billing of bonus payment eligible E&M relative value units (RVUs) by 3.7%. This response is consistent with supplier-induced demand and suggests a 46% offsetting response consistent with actuarial assumptions by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services when assessing reimbursement reductions.
Reference63 articles.
1. Abrams M., Nuzum R., Mika S., Lawlor G. (2011). How the Affordable Care Act will strengthen primary care and benefit patients, providers, and payers. https://www.commonwealth fund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publi cations_issue_brief_2011_jan_1466_abrams_how_aca_will_strengthen_primary_care_reform_brief_v3.pdf
2. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies
3. Primary Care — Will It Survive?
4. CPT fee differentials and visit upcoding under Medicare Part B