Article

Health Care as a "Market Good"? Appendicitis as a Case Study

University of California, San Francisco, and Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany (Dr Srebotnjak).
Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 04/2012; 172(10):818-9. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1173
Source: PubMed
1 Follower
 · 
121 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundThough past studies have shown wide variation in aggregate hospital price indices and specific procedures, few have documented or explained such variation for distinct and common episodes of care.ObjectivesWe sought to examine the variability in charges for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent and without major complications (MS-DRG-247), and determine whether hospital and market characteristics influenced these charges.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adults admitted to California hospitals in 2011 for MS-DRG-247 using patient discharge data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. We used a two-part linear regression model to first estimate hospital-specific charges adjusted for patient characteristics, and then examine whether the between-hospital variation in those estimated charges was explained by hospital and market characteristics.ResultsAdjusted charges for the average California patient admitted for uncomplicated PCI ranged from $22,047 to $165,386 (median: $88,350) depending on which hospital the patient visited. Hospitals in areas with the highest cost of living, those in rural areas, and those with more Medicare patients had higher charges, while government-owned hospitals charged less. Overall, our model explained 43% of the variation in adjusted charges. Estimated discounted prices paid by private insurers ranged from $3,421 to $80,903 (median: $28,571).ConclusionsCharges and estimated discounted prices vary widely between hospitals for the average California patient undergoing PCI without major complications, a common and relatively homogeneous episode of care. Though observable hospital characteristics account for some of this variation, the majority remains unexplained.
    PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e103829. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0103829 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the variation in charges for 10 common blood tests across California hospitals in 2011, and to analyse the hospital and market-level factors that may explain any observed variation.
    BMJ Open 08/2014; 4(8):e005482. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005482 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In India a lack of access to emergency obstetric care contributes to maternal deaths. In 2005 Gujarat state launched a public-private partnership (PPP) programme, ChiranjeeviYojana (CY), under which the state pays accredited private obstetricians a fixed fee for providing free intrapartum care to poor and tribal women. A million women have delivered under CY so far. The participation of private obstetricians in the partnership is central to the programme's effectiveness. We explored with private obstetricians the reasons and experiences that influenced their decisions to participate in the CY programme. Method In this qualitative study we interviewed 24 purposefully selected private obstetricians in Gujarat. We explored their views on the scheme, the reasons and experiences leading up to decisions to participate, not participate or withdraw from the CY, as well as their opinions about the scheme's impact. We analysed data using the Framework approach. Results Participants expressed a tension between doing public good and making a profit. Bureaucratic procedures and perceptions of programme misuse seemed to influence providers to withdraw from the programme or not participate at all. Providers feared that participating in CY would lower the status of their practices and some were deterred by the likelihood of more clinically difficult cases among eligible CY beneficiaries. Some providers resented taking on what they saw as a state responsibility to provide safe maternity services to poor women. Younger obstetricians in the process of establishing private practices, and those in more remote, 'less competitive' areas, were more willing to participate in CY. Some doctors had reservations over the quality of care that doctors could provide given the financial constraints of the scheme. Conclusions While some private obstetricians willingly participate in CY and are satisfied with its functioning, a larger number shared concerns about participation. Operational difficulties and a trust deficit between the public and private health sectors affect retention of private providers in the scheme. Further refinement of the scheme, in consultation with private partners, and trust building initiatives could strengthen the programme. These findings offer lessons to those developing public-private partnerships to widen access to health services for underprivileged groups.
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 11/2014; 14:352. DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-14-352 · 2.15 Impact Factor