The shift from purely fee-for-service to a mixed capitation and fee-for-service model in primary care is not unique to Croatia, but the Croatian experience provides valuable insights for those of us facing similar transitions. A recent case study examined the impact of Croatia's 2013 primary care payment reform on a rural family practitioner group practice. The findings highlight critical areas where practices must adapt to maintain quality and efficiency. We need to understand how these payment models influence patient panel management, preventative care delivery, and the administrative burden on our staff.
This isn't just about policy; it's about the day-to-day realities of running a successful practice and delivering quality primary care. Let's examine what this Croatian case study tells us about adapting to the changing landscape of primary care payment systems.
Clinical Key Takeaways
lightbulb
- The PivotMixed payment models demand proactive panel management and targeted preventative care strategies to optimize revenue and patient outcomes.
- The DataThe study showed shifts in practice behavior related to achieving targets for preventative services under the new payment structure.
- The ActionImplement regular audits of patient panel demographics and preventative service delivery to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement under capitation.
Understanding the Payment Model
Croatia's 2013 reform introduced a mixed payment system, combining capitation (fixed payment per enrolled patient) with fee-for-service (payment for specific services). This is similar to models seen in other European countries and some US value-based care initiatives. The goal, as always, was to control costs while maintaining or improving quality. For your practice, this means understanding the specific weights assigned to capitation versus fee-for-service within your contracts. Are you heavily reliant on fee-for-service revenue, or does capitation form the bulk of your income? This understanding is critical for resource allocation and strategic planning.
Impact on Patient Panels
The case study highlighted the importance of managing patient panel sizes effectively under capitation. Overly large panels can lead to rushed appointments and decreased quality, while small panels may not generate sufficient revenue. This echoes recommendations from various practice management organizations, urging careful consideration of provider capacity and patient needs when determining panel sizes. How does this compare to the recommendations made by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) regarding optimal panel size for comprehensive care? They emphasize the importance of accounting for patient complexity and physician workload when setting panel sizes.
Preventative Care Targets
The Croatian reform incentivized preventative care through specific targets tied to payment. This is in line with global trends emphasizing preventative medicine, as seen in guidelines from organizations like the USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force). These targets force a practice to consider how they are allocating resources to hit targets for preventative care. For example, are you proactively scheduling screenings, or are you waiting for patients to present with problems? Do you have dedicated staff for preventative care outreach and education? Are you using a patient portal, and is it helping? Make sure your team is using a system.
Administrative Workload
A common complaint with mixed payment models is the increased administrative burden. Meeting reporting requirements and navigating complex billing procedures can strain resources. This is not unique to Croatia. The administrative simplification goals outlined in HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) in the US remain largely unmet, and practices continue to struggle with paperwork. Consider investing in technology to streamline billing and reporting, or outsourcing these tasks to specialized firms.
Limitations of the Case Study
It's important to recognize the limitations of this single case study. The findings may not be generalizable to all primary care settings, particularly those in urban environments or with different patient demographics. Additionally, the study's exploratory nature means that causal relationships cannot be definitively established. Furthermore, the study looked at a single rural family practice in Croatia - how can we be sure that this result is generalizable? More research is needed to confirm these findings and explore the long-term effects of the reform.
Practical Strategies for Your Practice
So, what does this mean for your practice? Here are a few actionable steps to consider:
- Panel Analysis: Conduct a thorough analysis of your patient panel demographics, risk factors, and utilization patterns. This will help you understand your capitation revenue potential and identify opportunities for targeted interventions.
- Preventative Care Protocols: Develop standardized protocols for preventative care services, ensuring consistent delivery and adherence to guidelines.
- Workflow Optimization: Streamline administrative processes to minimize the burden on your staff. Consider using electronic health records (EHRs) and other technology solutions.
- Financial Monitoring: Closely monitor your revenue streams and expenses, paying particular attention to the impact of capitation and fee-for-service payments.
- Training: Provide ongoing training to your staff on the intricacies of the payment model and best practices for panel management and preventative care delivery.
The financial implications are significant. Practices must carefully manage costs and optimize revenue under the mixed payment model. This may involve renegotiating contracts with payers or adjusting service fees to ensure financial sustainability. Consider the potential for financial toxicity for patients who may face increased out-of-pocket costs for certain services. Also, be prepared for potential workflow bottlenecks as staff adapt to new reporting requirements and billing procedures. Staff training costs should be considered. If a practice is not careful, these changes will cause significant financial hardship.
LSF-1735343150 | December 2025

How to cite this article
O'Malley L. Croatia's primary care reform what it means for your practice. The Life Science Feed. Published December 12, 2025. Updated December 12, 2025. Accessed January 31, 2026. .
Copyright and license
© 2026 The Life Science Feed. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all content is the property of The Life Science Feed and may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission.
Fact-Checking & AI Transparency
This summary was generated using advanced AI technology and reviewed by our editorial team for accuracy and clinical relevance.
References
- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Health at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- Starfield, B., Shi, L., & Macinko, J. (2005). Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. The Milbank Quarterly, 83(3), 457-502.
- US Preventive Services Task Force. (2023). Recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendations
- Goodman, D. C., Fisher, E. S., & Chang, C. H. (2003). The care of patients with chronic illness. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. Chicago, IL: AHA Press.
Related Articles

Implementing Extended Reality in Congenital Heart Disease Programs

Navigating the Macrocytic Anemia Maze When You See Early Erythroblasts


