danke😊

danke, Michael! 😊

Thank you, Lucie!😊

You can find the working paper here: http://www.economics.jku.at/papers/2024/wp2404.pdf
If you have any comments, we are excited to hear them.
The end! ✨ https://t.co/3c3oxtSIQj

Overall, female PCPs have direct and indirect effects on the public health care system. They reduce costs by providing fewer services (which does not seem to affect patients negatively), but increase costs by leading to more patients changing their PCP (which is costly).

The difference in PCP fees is driven by a 27% gap of in the provision of health screening between male and female successors. The raw data shows that it is in fact male PCPs who increase health screening provision.

But patients are not more likely to exchange their female PCP for a new male PCP, so it does not look like discrimination. Instead, using a different data set suggests that female PCPs work 17% fewer hours than male colleagues, especially when they have children (30% gap).

After the replacement, revenues in practices taken over by a female PCP decrease by 15% (6,190 euros per quarter).

Neither the exiting PCP nor the patients can influence who becomes the new successor and new female PCPs do not systematically apply to different positions than their male peers.

Main message: Female PCPs generate lower revenues, which is driven by (a) them treating fewer patients and (b) them providing fewer services than their male peers. Our results do not hint at discrimination by patients but rather at female PCPs working fewer hours.

https://t.co/raPt6KO2Wa