From: Pay for performance and contractual choice: the case of general practitioners in England
Model I | Model II | Model III | |
---|---|---|---|
Partnership: | Mobility: | Access of | |
new doctors: | |||
Age | 1.03*** | -0.33*** | -0.22*** |
(0.02) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
Age squared | -0.01*** | 0.003*** | - |
(0.0002) | (0.00001) | ||
Female | -1.48*** | 0.03 | -0.07 |
(0.04) | (0.02) | (0.04) | |
Prop. total QOF points | - | -0.01*** | -0.001 |
(0.002) | (0.001) | ||
FTE | 0.02*** | 0.003*** | - |
(0.001) | (0.001) | ||
Distance to the best practice | 0.002* | -0.001 | -0.001 |
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
Total population | 0.13*** | 0.02*** | - |
(0.01) | (0.005) | ||
LISI | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.01** |
(0.003) | (0.001) | (0.003) | |
Proportion female 65-74 | 0.16*** | -0.02 | -0.13*** |
(0.05) | (0.02) | (0.05) | |
Proportion female 75+ | 0.05* | -0.04*** | -0.01 |
(0.03) | (0.01) | (0.03) | |
Proportion male 65-74 | -0.08* | 0.05** | 0.09* |
(0.05) | (0.02) | (0.05) | |
Proportion male 75+ | -0.06 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
(0.05) | (0.01) | (0.06) | |
Practice years | 0.02*** | -0.008*** | -0.01** |
(0.003) | (0.001) | (0.004) | |
Practice size | -0.23*** | -0.06*** | 0.17*** |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.009) | |
2004 | -1.96*** | -0.01*** | - |
(0.18) | (0.001) | ||
2005 | -2.02*** | -0.01*** | -0.88*** |
(0.18) | (0.001) | (0.03) | |
2006 | -3.00*** | -0.06*** | -1.65*** |
(0.19) | (0.002) | (0.05) | |
2007 | -3.35 | -0.07*** | -2.68*** |
(0.19) | (0.002) | (0.07) | |
Inverse Mills’ ratio | - | 5.25*** | |
(0.62) | |||
Constant | -20.64*** | 6.96*** | 7.49*** |
(0.03) | (0.25) | (0.21) | |
N. observations | 141,529 | 126,626 | 102,325 |
N. practices | 8507 | 8507 | 5033 |