• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

医院与医疗保健计划的谈判筹码:其如何变化以及为何变化?

Hospitals' negotiating leverage with health plans: how and why has it changed?

作者信息

Devers Kelly J, Casalino Lawrence P, Rudell Liza S, Stoddard Jeffrey J, Brewster Linda R, Lake Timothy K

机构信息

Center for Studying Health System Change, Washington, DC 20024-2512, USA.

出版信息

Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 2):419-46. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00123.

DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.00123
PMID:12650374
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1360893/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To describe how hospitals' negotiating leverage with managed care plans changed from 1996 to 2001 and to identify factors that explain any changes.

DATA SOURCES

Primary semistructured interviews, and secondary qualitative (e.g., newspaper articles) and quantitative (i.e., InterStudy, American Hospital Association) data.

STUDY DESIGN

The Community Tracking Study site visits to a nationally representative sample of 12 communities with more than 200,000 people. These 12 markets have been studied since 1996 using a variety of primary and secondary data sources.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of individuals from hospitals, health plans, and knowledgeable market observers. Secondary quantitative data on the 12 markets was also obtained.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our findings suggest that many hospitals' negotiating leverage significantly increased after years of decline. Today, many hospitals are viewed as having the greatest leverage in local markets. Changes in three areas--the policy and purchasing context, managed care plan market, and hospital market--appear to explain why hospitals' leverage increased, particularly over the last two years (2000-2001).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals' increased negotiating leverage contributed to higher payment rates, which in turn are likely to increase managed care plan premiums. This trend raises challenging issues for policymakers, purchasers, plans, and consumers.

摘要

目的

描述医院与管理式医疗计划的谈判影响力在1996年至2001年间如何变化,并确定能够解释这些变化的因素。

数据来源

初步的半结构化访谈,以及二手定性数据(如报纸文章)和定量数据(即InterStudy、美国医院协会的数据)。

研究设计

社区追踪研究对全国12个有超过20万人口的具有代表性的社区进行实地考察。自1996年以来,一直使用各种一手和二手数据来源对这12个市场进行研究。

数据收集方法

对来自医院、健康计划和经验丰富的市场观察人士的目标样本进行半结构化访谈。还获取了关于这12个市场的二手定量数据。

主要发现

我们的研究结果表明,许多医院的谈判影响力在经历多年下降后显著增强。如今,许多医院在当地市场被视为具有最大的影响力。政策和采购环境、管理式医疗计划市场以及医院市场这三个领域的变化似乎可以解释医院影响力增加的原因,尤其是在过去两年(2000 - 2001年)。

结论

医院谈判影响力的增强导致支付率提高,这反过来可能会增加管理式医疗计划的保费。这一趋势给政策制定者、采购方、计划方和消费者带来了具有挑战性的问题。

相似文献

1
Hospitals' negotiating leverage with health plans: how and why has it changed?医院与医疗保健计划的谈判筹码:其如何变化以及为何变化?
Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 2):419-46. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00123.
2
The end of an era: what became of the "managed care revolution" in 2001?一个时代的终结:2001年的“管理式医疗革命”结局如何?
Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 2):337-55. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00119.
3
Getting along or going along? Health plan-provider contract showdowns subside.
Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2004 Jan(74):1-4.
4
An empty toolbox? Changes in health plans' approaches for managing costs and care.一个空工具箱?健康计划在管理成本和医疗方面的方法变化。
Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 2):375-93. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00121.
5
Competition in hospital and health insurance markets: a review and research agenda.医院与健康保险市场中的竞争:综述与研究议程
Health Serv Res. 2001 Apr;36(1 Pt 2):191-221.
6
Changes in hospital competitive strategy: a new medical arms race?医院竞争战略的变化:一场新的医疗军备竞赛?
Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 2):447-69. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00124.
7
Health plan-provider showdowns on the rise.
Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2001 Jun(40):1-4.
8
The changing face of managed care.管理式医疗的不断变化面貌。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Jan-Feb;21(1):11-23. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.1.11.
9
Health care market trends and the evolution of hospitalist use and roles.医疗保健市场趋势以及住院医师的使用情况和角色演变。
J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Feb;20(2):101-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40184.x.
10
Evaluating and negotiating a profitable capitation contract.评估并协商一份盈利性的按人头付费合同。
Healthc Financ Manage. 1997 Feb;51(2):44-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluating the Financial Sustainability of the School-Based Telemedicine Asthma Management Program.评估基于学校的远程医疗哮喘管理项目的财务可持续性。
Popul Health Manag. 2021 Dec;24(6):664-674. doi: 10.1089/pop.2020.0361. Epub 2021 May 14.
2
Delivery system integration and health care spending and quality for Medicare beneficiaries.医疗保险受益人的输送系统整合与医疗支出和质量。
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Aug 12;173(15):1447-56. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6886.
3
Hospital cost and quality performance in relation to market forces: an examination of U.S. community hospitals in the "post-managed care era".与市场力量相关的医院成本与质量绩效:对“后管理式医疗时代”美国社区医院的考察
Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2013 Mar;13(1):53-71. doi: 10.1007/s10754-013-9122-9. Epub 2013 Jan 26.
4
Understanding how orthopaedic surgery practices generate value for healthcare systems.理解矫形外科手术实践如何为医疗保健系统创造价值。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jun;471(6):1801-8. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2774-9.
5
The impact of hospital mergers on treatment intensity and health outcomes.医院合并对治疗强度和健康结果的影响。
Health Serv Res. 2012 Jun;47(3 Pt 1):1008-29. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01351.x. Epub 2011 Nov 18.
6
Market power and contract form: evidence from physician group practices.市场势力与合同形式:来自医生集团执业的证据
Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2011 Jun;11(2):115-32. doi: 10.1007/s10754-011-9091-9. Epub 2011 May 12.
7
Use of qualitative methods in published health services and management research: a 10-year review.发表的卫生服务和管理研究中定性方法的使用:十年回顾。
Med Care Res Rev. 2011 Feb;68(1):3-33. doi: 10.1177/1077558710372810. Epub 2010 Jul 30.
8
Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory.卫生服务研究的定性数据分析:构建分类法、主题和理论。
Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1758-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x.
9
Exporting the Buyers Health Care Action Group purchasing model: lessons from other communities.推广买家医疗保健行动小组的采购模式:来自其他社区的经验教训。
Milbank Q. 2005;83(1):149-76. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2005.00339.x.
10
Consumer experiences in a consumer-driven health plan.消费者驱动型健康计划中的消费者体验。
Health Serv Res. 2004 Aug;39(4 Pt 2):1123-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00278.x.

本文引用的文献

1
Something old, something new: recent developments in hospital-physician relationships.旧貌新颜:医院与医生关系的最新发展
Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 2):471-88. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00125.
2
Changes in hospital competitive strategy: a new medical arms race?医院竞争战略的变化:一场新的医疗军备竞赛?
Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 2):447-69. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00124.
3
Managing costs, managing benefits: employer decisions in local health care markets.管理成本,管理效益:雇主在地方医疗市场中的决策。
Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 2):357-73. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00120.
4
The end of an era: what became of the "managed care revolution" in 2001?一个时代的终结:2001年的“管理式医疗革命”结局如何?
Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 2):337-55. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00119.
5
Tracking health care costs: hospital care key cost driver in 2000.追踪医疗保健成本:2000年医院护理是关键成本驱动因素。
Data Bull (Cent Stud Health Syst Change). 2001 Sep(21):1-2.
6
Is managed care leading to consolidation in health-care markets?管理式医疗是否正在导致医疗保健市场的整合?
Health Serv Res. 2002 Jun;37(3):573-94; discussion 595-609. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00038.
7
Employer-sponsored health insurance: pressing problems, incremental changes.雇主提供的医疗保险:紧迫问题与渐进式变革
Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Jan-Feb;21(1):66-75. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.1.66.
8
Inflation spurs health spending in 2000.2000年通货膨胀刺激了医疗支出。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Jan-Feb;21(1):172-81. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.1.172.
9
The changing face of managed care.管理式医疗的不断变化面貌。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Jan-Feb;21(1):11-23. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.1.11.
10
Health plan-provider showdowns on the rise.
Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2001 Jun(40):1-4.