Abstract
In this commentary, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the following incentive-based remuneration systems in dentistry: fee-for-service remuneration, per capita remuneration, a mixed payment system (a combination of fee-for-service remuneration and per capita remuneration) and pay-for-performance. The two latter schemes are fairly new in dentistry. Fee-for-service payments secure high quality, but lead to increased costs, probably due to supplier-induced demand. Per capita payments secure effectiveness, but may lead to under-treatment and patient selection. A mixed payment scheme produces results somewhere between over- and under-treatment. The prospective component (the per capita payment) promotes efficiency, while the retrospective component (the fee-for-service payment) secures high quality of the care that is provided. A pay-for-performance payment scheme is specifically designed towards improvements in dental health. This is done by linking provider reimbursements directly to performance indicators measuring dental health outcomes and quality of the services. Experience from general health services is that pay-for-performance payment has not been very successful. This is due to significant design and implementation obstacles and lack of provider acceptance. A major criticism of all the incentive-based remuneration schemes is that they may undermine the dentists' intrinsic motivation for performing a task. This is a crowding-out effect, which is particularly strong when monetary incentives are introduced for care that is cognitively demanding and complex, for example as in dentistry. One way in which intrinsic motivation may not be undermined is to introduce a fixed salary component into the remuneration scheme. Dentists would then be able to choose their type of contract according to their abilities and their preferences for nonmonetary rewards as opposed to monetary rewards. If a fixed salary component cannot be introduced into the remuneration scheme, the fees should be 'neutral'; that is, they should just cover the costs of the services provided. This is one way in which supplier-induced demand can be limited and costs contained.
Highlights
Grytten, Jostein; University of Oslo, Institute of Community Dentistry per capita remuneration, pay for-performance, remuneration, incentives, fee-for-service us Keywords: Commentary
A pay-forperformance payment scheme is designed towards improvements in dental cr health. This is done by linking provider reimbursements directly to performance indicators measuring dental health outcomes and quality of the services
If a fixed salary component cannot be introduced into the remuneration scheme, the fees should be “neutral”; i.e. they should just cover the costs of the services provided
Summary
A major criticism of all the incentive-based remuneration schemes is that they may undermine the dentists’ intrinsic motivation for performing a task. This is a crowding-out effect, which is strong when monetary incentives are introduced for care that is cognitively demanding and complex, for example as in dentistry. If a fixed salary component cannot be introduced into the remuneration scheme, the fees should be “neutral”; i.e. they should just cover the costs of the services provided. This is one way in which supplier-induced demand can be limited, and costs contained
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
