Author
Abstract
This paper studies the preferences among healthcare workers towards pay schemes involving different levels of risk. It identifies which pay scheme individuals would prefer for themselves, and which they think is best in furthering health policy objectives. The paper adds, methodologically, a way of defining pay schemes that include different levels of risk. A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 1111 dentists. Respondents provided information about their current and preferred pay schemes, and indicated which pay scheme, in their opinion, would best further overall health policy objectives. A total of 504 dentists (45%) returned the questionnaire, and there was no indication of systematic non-response bias. All public dentists had a current pay scheme based on a fixed salary and the majority of individuals preferred a pay scheme with more income risk. Their preferred pay schemes coincided with the ones believed to further stabilise healthcare personnel. The predominant current pay scheme among private dentists was based solely on individual output, and the majority of respondents preferred this pay scheme. In addition, their preferred pay schemes coincided with the ones believed to further efficiency objectives. Both public and private dentists believed that pay schemes, furthering efficiency objectives, had to include more performance-related pay than the ones believed to further stability and quality objectives.
Suggested Citation
Abelsen, Birgit, 2011.
"Pay scheme preferences and health policy objectives,"
Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 157-173, April.
Handle:
RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:6:y:2011:i:02:p:157-173_00
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:6:y:2011:i:02:p:157-173_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.