Incorporating health care quality into health antitrust law

Nicholas C, Petris Center on Health Care Markets & Consumer Welfare, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA .
BMC Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 1.66). 02/2008; 8(1):89. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-89
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Antitrust authorities treat price as a proxy for hospital quality since health care quality is difficult to observe. As the ability to measure quality improved, more research became necessary to investigate the relationship between hospital market power and patient outcomes. This paper examines the impact of hospital competition on the quality of care as measured by the risk-adjusted mortality rates with the hospital as the unit of analysis. The study separately examines the effect of competition on non-profit hospitals.
We use California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) data from 1997 through 2002. Empirical model is a cross-sectional study of 373 hospitals. Regression analysis is used to estimate the relationship between Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) risk-adjusted mortality rates and hospital competition.
Regression results show lower risk-adjusted mortality rates in the presence of a more competitive environment. This result holds for all alternative hospital market definitions. Non-profit hospitals do not have better patient outcomes than investor-owned hospitals. However, they tend to provide better quality in less competitive environments. CABG volume did not have a significant effect on patient outcomes.
Quality should be incorporated into the antitrust analysis. When mergers lead to higher prices and lower quality, thus lower social welfare, the antitrust challenge of hospital mergers is warranted. The impact of lower hospital competition on quality of care delivered by non-profit hospitals is ambiguous.


Available from: Helen Schneider, Apr 08, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Economic theory suggests that income growth could lead to changes in consumption quantity and quality as the spending on a commodity changes. Similarly, the volume and quality of healthcare consumption could rise with incomes because of demographic changes, usage of innovative medical technologies, and other factors. Hospital healthcare spending is the largest component of aggregate US healthcare expenditures. The novel contribution of our paper is estimating and decomposing the income elasticity of hospital care expenditures (HOCEXP) into its quantity and quality components. By using a 1999-2008 panel dataset of the 50 US states, results from the seemingly unrelated regressions model estimation reveal the income elasticity of HOCEXP to be 0.427 (std. error = 0.044), with about 0.391 (calculated std. error = 0.044) arising from care quality improvements and 0.035 (std. error = 0.050) emanating from the rise in usage volume. Our novel research findings suggest the following: (i) the quantity part of hospital expenditure is inelastic to income change; (ii) almost the entire income-induced rise in hospital expenditure comes from care quality changes; and (iii) the 0.427 income elasticity of HOCEXP, the largest component of total US healthcare expenditure, makes hospital care a normal commodity and a much stronger technical necessity than aggregate healthcare. Policy implications are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Health Economics 11/2014; 23(11). DOI:10.1002/hec.2986 · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Public disclosure is increasingly a requirement of accrediting agencies and governments. There are few published empirical evaluations of disclosure interventions that inform evidence-based implementation or policy. This study investigated the practices associated with the public disclosure of healthcare accreditation information, in addition to multi-stakeholder perceptions of key challenges and opportunities for improvement. We conducted a mixed methods study comprising analysis of disclosure practices by accreditation agencies, and 47 semi-structured individual or group interviews involving 258 people. Participants were diverse stakeholders associated with Australian primary, acute and residential aged care accreditation programmes. Four interrelated issues were identified. First, there was broad agreement that accreditation information should be publicly disclosed, although the three accreditation agencies differed in the information they made public. Second, two implementation issues emerged: the need to educate the community about accreditation information, and the practical question of the detail to be provided. Third, the impact, both positive and negative, of disclosing accreditation information was raised. Fourth, the lack of knowledge about the impact on consumers was discussed. Public disclosure of accreditation information is an idea that has widespread support. However, translating the idea into practice, so as to produce appropriate, meaningful information, is a challenge.
    Health Policy 09/2013; 113(1-2). DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.09.002 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Social Welfare, 03/2012; , ISBN: 978-953-51-0208-3