  We aim to determine whether a game-theoretic model between an insurer and a
healthcare practice yields a predictive equilibrium that incentivizes either
player to deviate from a fee-for-service to capitation payment system. Using
United States data from various primary care surveys, we find that non-extreme
equilibria (i.e., shares of patients, or shares of patient visits, seen under a
fee-for-service payment system) can be derived from a Stackelberg game if
insurers award a non-linear bonus to practices based on performance. Overall,
both insurers and practices can be incentivized to embrace capitation payments
somewhat, but potentially at the expense of practice performance.
