Dataset Information

Hospital Choice for Cataract Treatments: The Winner Takes Most.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Transparency in quality of care is an increasingly important issue in healthcare. In many international healthcare systems, transparency in quality is crucial for health insurers when purchasing care on behalf of their consumers, for providers to improve the quality of care (if necessary), and for consumers to choose their provider in case treatment is needed. Conscious consumer choices incentivize healthcare providers to deliver better quality of care. This paper studies the impact of quality on patient volume and hospital choice, and more specifically whether high quality providers are able to attract more patients. METHODS:The dataset covers the period 2006-2011 and includes all patients who underwent a cataract treatment in the Netherlands. We first estimate the impact of quality on volume using a simple ordinary least squares (OLS), second we use a mixed logit to determine how patients make trade-offs between quality, distance and waiting time in provider choice. RESULTS:At the aggregate-level we find that, a one-point quality increase, on a scale of one to a hundred, raises patient volume for the average hospital by 2-4 percent. This effect is mainly driven by the hospital with the highest quality score: the effect halves after excluding this hospital from the dataset. Also at the individual-level, all else being equal, patients have a stronger preference for the hospital with the highest quality score, and appear indifferent between the remaining hospitals. CONCLUSION:Our results suggest that the top performing hospital is able to attract significantly more patients than the remaining hospitals. We find some evidence that a small share of consumers may respond to quality differences, thereby contributing to incentives for providers to invest in quality and for insurers to take quality into account in the purchasing strategy.

SUBMITTER: Ruwaard S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6358653 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hospital Choice for Cataract Treatments: The Winner Takes Most.

Ruwaard Suzanne S Douven Rudy C M H RCMH

International journal of health policy and management 20181201 12

<h4>Background</h4>Transparency in quality of care is an increasingly important issue in healthcare. In many international healthcare systems, transparency in quality is crucial for health insurers when purchasing care on behalf of their consumers, for providers to improve the quality of care (if necessary), and for consumers to choose their provider in case treatment is needed. Conscious consumer choices incentivize healthcare providers to deliver better quality of care. This paper studies the ...[more]

PMID: 30709087

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo elicit and value patient preferences for the processes and outcomes of surgical management of stress urinary incontinence in women.DesignA discrete choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for type of anaesthesia, postoperative recovery time, treatment success, adverse events, impact on daily activities and cost. An experimental design generated 40 choice tasks, and each respondent completed 1 block of 10 and 2 validity tests. Analysis was by multinomial logistical regression.SettingN=21 UK hospitals.ParticipantsN=325 adult women who were a subsample of those randomised to the single-incision mini-slings clinical trial.OutcomesPatient preferences; valuation obtained using willingness to pay.ResultsN=227 of 325 (70%) returned a questionnaire, and 94% of those completed all choice tasks. Respondents preferred general anaesthesia, shorter recovery times, improved stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of adverse events. Women were willing to pay (mean (95% CI)) £76 (£33 to £119) per day of reduction in recovery time following surgery. They valued increases in Patient Global Impression of Improvement, ranging from £8173 (£5459 to £10 887) for 'improved' to £11 706 (£8267 to £15 144) for 'very much improved' symptoms, compared with no symptom improvement. This was offset by negative values attached to the avoidance of complications ranging between £-8022 (£-10 661 to £-5383) and £-10 632 (£-14 077 to £-7187) compared to no complications. Women valued treatments that reduced the need to avoid daily activities, with willingness to pay ranging from £-967 (£-2199 to £266) for rarely avoiding activities to £-5338 (£-7258 to £-3417) for frequently avoiding daily activities compared with no avoidance.ConclusionThis discrete choice experiment demonstrates that patients place considerable value on improvement in stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of treatment complications. Trade-offs between symptom improvement and adverse event risk should be considered within shared decision-making. The willingness to pay values from this study can be used in future cost-benefit analyses.Trial registration numberISRCTN: 93264234; Post-results.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about how often patients have revision total hip replacement in the same hospital in which they had the primary procedure.MethodsWe examined Medicare claims data to identify patients who had primary total hip replacement from July 1995 to June 1996 and subsequently had revision through December 31, 2006. We examined whether the revision was performed in the same or different hospital from the primary procedure, with different hospitals being categorized as being in a lower, a higher, or the same hospital volume stratum. Hospital strata included twenty-five or fewer cases of total hip replacement annually in the Medicare population, twenty-six to fifty cases, fifty-one to 100 cases, and >100 cases. We calculated the number of revisions generated (primary procedures eventuating in revision) by hospitals in each volume stratum and the number of revisions performed in these hospitals.ResultsOf 4448 revision procedures, 3306 (74%) were performed in hospitals in the same volume stratum as the hospital where the primary procedure was performed. Four hundred twenty-nine revisions (9.6%) were performed in a lower-volume hospital, and 713 (16%) were performed in a higher-volume hospital. Thirty-one (3%) of 960 patients who had revision within one year after the primary total hip replacement had the revision in a lower-volume center, compared with 204 (15%) of 1393 who had revision more than six years after the primary procedure (odds ratio = 4.6 ; 95% confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.8). The ratio of revisions performed to revisions generated was 1.21 for the highest-volume centers and 0.86 for the lowest-volume centers.ConclusionsOf 4448 revisions examined in this study, 429 (<10%) were performed in centers with a lower volume of total hip replacement than the center at which the initial hip replacement was performed, whereas 713 (16%) were performed in higher-volume centers. Higher-volume centers performed 21% more revisions than they generated (531 revisions performed, compared with 438 generated). These data will help to inform health-care policy with regard to the utilization of resources for revision total hip replacement.

Dataset Information

Hospital Choice for Cataract Treatments: The Winner Takes Most.

Publications

Hospital Choice for Cataract Treatments: The Winner Takes Most.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets