TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of rural workforce incentives on access to GP services in underserved areas
T2 - evidence from a natural experiment
AU - Swami, Megha
AU - Scott, Anthony
N1 - Funding Information:
This study used data from the MABEL longitudinal survey of doctors. Funding for MABEL was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2007 to 2016: 454799 and 1019605 ); the Australian Department of Health and Ageing (2008); Health Workforce Australia (2013); The University of Melbourne, Medibank Better Health Foundation , the NSW Department of Health, and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (2017); and the Australian Government Department of Health, the Australian Digital Health Agency , and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (2018). The MABEL study was approved by The University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics Human Ethics Advisory Group (Ref. 0709559 ) and the Monash University Standing Committee on Ethics in Research Involving Humans (Ref: 195535 CF07/1102 – 2007000291 ). Megha Swami's PhD study was supported by Melbourne Research Scholarship from the University of Melbourne . The authors would like to thank participants of the 39th Australian Health Economics Society Conference for helpful comments, and members of the MABEL team for data cleaning. The findings and views in this paper are those of the authors alone and none of the above bears any responsibility for the contents of this work. The MABEL research team bears no responsibility for how the data has been analysed, used or summarised in this research.
Funding Information:
This study used data from the MABEL longitudinal survey of doctors. Funding for MABEL was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2007 to 2016: 454799 and 1019605); the Australian Department of Health and Ageing (2008); Health Workforce Australia (2013); The University of Melbourne, Medibank Better Health Foundation, the NSW Department of Health, and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (2017); and the Australian Government Department of Health, the Australian Digital Health Agency, and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (2018). The MABEL study was approved by The University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics Human Ethics Advisory Group (Ref. 0709559) and the Monash University Standing Committee on Ethics in Research Involving Humans (Ref: 195535 CF07/1102 ? 2007000291). Megha Swami's PhD study was supported by Melbourne Research Scholarship from the University of Melbourne. The authors would like to thank participants of the 39th Australian Health Economics Society Conference for helpful comments, and members of the MABEL team for data cleaning. The findings and views in this paper are those of the authors alone and none of the above bears any responsibility for the contents of this work. The MABEL research team bears no responsibility for how the data has been analysed, used or summarised in this research.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2021/7
Y1 - 2021/7
N2 - Financial incentives are often used to improve recruitment and retention of physicians in rural and remote areas. In 2010, the General Practice Rural Incentive Program (GPRIP) was introduced in Australia, causing an exogenous change in the eligibility for rural incentives for some geographical areas. This study investigates the effect of this policy reform on waiting times for a non-urgent GP appointment using panel data (2008–2014) on 2058 GPs. Using difference-in-difference methodology, results show that the number of GPs in practices in newly eligible areas increased. However, no evidence is found that this reduces waiting times for existing patients, and only weak evidence is found that waiting times for new patients fell, by around 16%. Our results suggest that financial incentives may only play a limited role in improving access to primary care and should not be the only solution to address medical workforce shortages in underserved areas.
AB - Financial incentives are often used to improve recruitment and retention of physicians in rural and remote areas. In 2010, the General Practice Rural Incentive Program (GPRIP) was introduced in Australia, causing an exogenous change in the eligibility for rural incentives for some geographical areas. This study investigates the effect of this policy reform on waiting times for a non-urgent GP appointment using panel data (2008–2014) on 2058 GPs. Using difference-in-difference methodology, results show that the number of GPs in practices in newly eligible areas increased. However, no evidence is found that this reduces waiting times for existing patients, and only weak evidence is found that waiting times for new patients fell, by around 16%. Our results suggest that financial incentives may only play a limited role in improving access to primary care and should not be the only solution to address medical workforce shortages in underserved areas.
KW - Difference-in-differences
KW - Financial incentives
KW - MABEL Survey
KW - Primary care
KW - Rural workforce
KW - Waiting times
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107297844&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114045
DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114045
M3 - Article
C2 - 34091229
AN - SCOPUS:85107297844
SN - 0277-9536
VL - 281
JO - Social Science & Medicine
JF - Social Science & Medicine
M1 - 114045
ER -