• 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

相似文献

1
Divided by choice? For-profit providers, patient choice and mechanisms of patient sorting in the English National Health Service.是否因选择而分化?盈利性医疗机构、患者选择权与英国国民医疗服务体系中的患者分类机制。
Health Econ. 2021 Apr;30(4):820-839. doi: 10.1002/hec.4223. Epub 2021 Feb 5.
2
Exploring determinants of health provider choice and heterogeneity in preference among outpatients in Beijing: a labelled discrete choice experiment.探讨北京门诊患者选择卫生服务提供者的决定因素和偏好异质性:一项标记离散选择实验。
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 3;9(4):e023363. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023363.
3
The role of private non-profit healthcare organizations in NHS systems: Implications for the Portuguese hospital devolution program.私立非营利性医疗组织在国民医疗服务体系中的作用:对葡萄牙医院权力下放计划的启示。
Health Policy. 2017 Jun;121(6):699-707. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.016. Epub 2017 Apr 1.
4
The sorting effect in healthcare access: Those left behind.医疗保健获取中的排序效应:被落下的人。
Econ Hum Biol. 2023 Dec;51:101282. doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2023.101282. Epub 2023 Jul 27.
5
Changes in the activity levels and financing sources of Israel's private for-profit hospitals in the wake of reforms to the public-private divide.以色列公私界限改革后,私立营利性医院活动水平和资金来源的变化。
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2021 Mar 15;10(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s13584-021-00455-z.
6
The 2015 hospital treatment choice reform in Norway: Continuity or change?2015年挪威医院治疗选择改革:延续还是变革?
Health Policy. 2016 Apr;120(4):350-5. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.02.013. Epub 2016 Mar 4.
7
A qualitative study of diverse providers' behaviour in response to commissioners, patients and innovators in England: research protocol.一项关于英国不同医疗服务提供者针对医保机构、患者及创新者的行为的定性研究:研究方案。
BMJ Open. 2016 May 13;6(5):e010680. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010680.
8
What should the government do regarding health policy-making to develop community health care in Shanghai?政府应该在制定健康政策方面采取哪些措施来发展上海的社区卫生保健?
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2011 Oct-Dec;26(4):379-435. doi: 10.1002/hpm.1117.
9
Comparing the average cost of outpatient care of public and for-profit private providers in India.比较印度公共医疗机构和营利性私立医疗机构的门诊护理平均费用。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Aug 19;21(1):838. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06777-7.
10
Liberalizing the health care market: the new government's ambition for the English National Health Service.放宽医疗市场限制:新政府对英国国民保健制度的新期望。
Int J Health Serv. 2011;41(3):565-74. doi: 10.2190/HS.41.3.i.

引用本文的文献

1
Primary Healthcare Centre Improvement and Privatisation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review.沙特阿拉伯王国的初级医疗保健中心改善与私有化:一项系统综述
Cureus. 2024 Dec 25;16(12):e76357. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76357. eCollection 2024 Dec.
2
A decade of outsourcing in health and social care in England: What was it meant to achieve?英格兰医疗卫生与社会照护领域十年外包:其原本旨在实现什么?
Soc Policy Adm. 2024 Nov;58(6):938-959. doi: 10.1111/spol.13036. Epub 2024 May 21.
3
Stroke but no hospital admission: Lost opportunity for whom?未住院的卒中:错失机会者为谁?
PLoS One. 2024 Aug 28;19(8):e0307220. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307220. eCollection 2024.
4
Patient outcomes, efficiency, and adverse events for elective hip and knee replacement in private and NHS hospitals: a population-based cohort study in England.私立医院和国民保健服务(NHS)医院择期髋关节和膝关节置换手术的患者预后、效率及不良事件:一项基于英格兰人群的队列研究
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024 Apr 17;40:100904. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100904. eCollection 2024 May.
5
Do budget constraints limit access to health care? Evidence from PCI treatments in Hungary.预算限制是否会影响医疗保健的可及性?来自匈牙利 PCI 治疗的证据。
Int J Health Econ Manag. 2023 Jun;23(2):281-302. doi: 10.1007/s10754-023-09349-w. Epub 2023 Apr 19.
6
"Shopping around" for treatment is not a solution to cancer backlog.“四处求医”不是解决癌症积压问题的办法。
BMJ. 2022 Oct 10;379:e071967. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-071967.
7
Patient preferences and choices as a reflection of trust-A cluster analysis comparing postsurgical perceptions in a private and a public hospital.患者的偏好和选择反映了信任——对私立医院和公立医院术后感知的聚类分析。
Health Expect. 2022 Oct;25(5):2340-2354. doi: 10.1111/hex.13487. Epub 2022 Jul 14.
8
Outsourcing health-care services to the private sector and treatable mortality rates in England, 2013-20: an observational study of NHS privatisation.将医疗保健服务外包给私营部门与英格兰 2013-2020 年可治疗死亡率:一项对英国国家医疗服务体系私有化的观察性研究。
Lancet Public Health. 2022 Jul;7(7):e638-e646. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00133-5.

本文引用的文献

1
The impacts of private hospital entry on the public market for elective care in England.私立医院进入对英格兰择期医疗公共市场的影响。
J Health Econ. 2020 Sep;73:102353. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102353. Epub 2020 Jul 9.
2
Choice in the presence of experts: The role of general practitioners in patients' hospital choice.存在专家时的选择:全科医生在患者选择医院中的作用。
J Health Econ. 2018 Jul;60:98-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2018.06.003. Epub 2018 Jun 26.
3
Free to Choose? Reform, Choice, and Consideration Sets in the English National Health Service.自由选择?英国国民医疗服务体系中的改革、选择与考量集
Am Econ Rev. 2016 Nov;106(11):3521-57. doi: 10.1257/aer.20121532.
4
Returns to specialization: Evidence from the outpatient surgery market.回归专业化:门诊手术市场的证据。
J Health Econ. 2018 Jan;57:147-167. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.11.004. Epub 2017 Dec 9.
5
Socioeconomic inequality of access to healthcare: Does choice explain the gradient?医疗保健获取机会的社会经济不平等:选择能解释这种梯度吗?
J Health Econ. 2018 Jan;57:290-314. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.06.005. Epub 2017 Jun 23.
6
Location, quality and choice of hospital: Evidence from England 2002-2013.医院的地理位置、质量与选择:来自2002年至2013年英国的证据
Reg Sci Urban Econ. 2016 Sep;60:112-124. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2016.07.001.
7
Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?医院的选择:哪种质量至关重要?
J Health Econ. 2016 Dec;50:230-246. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.08.001. Epub 2016 Aug 22.
8
Privatization and quality: Evidence from elderly care in Sweden.私有化与质量:来自瑞典老年护理的证据。
J Health Econ. 2016 Sep;49:109-19. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.06.010. Epub 2016 Jun 29.
9
Minority ethnicity patient satisfaction and experience: results of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey in England.少数民族患者的满意度和体验:英格兰国家癌症患者体验调查结果。
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 28;6(6):e011938. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011938.
10
Governance, Government, and the Search for New Provider Models.治理、政府与新医疗服务提供模式的探寻
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Nov 3;5(1):33-42. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.198.

是否因选择而分化?盈利性医疗机构、患者选择权与英国国民医疗服务体系中的患者分类机制。

Divided by choice? For-profit providers, patient choice and mechanisms of patient sorting in the English National Health Service.

机构信息

Department of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK.

Institute for Fiscal Studies, London, UK.

出版信息

Health Econ. 2021 Apr;30(4):820-839. doi: 10.1002/hec.4223. Epub 2021 Feb 5.

DOI:10.1002/hec.4223
PMID:33544392
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8248133/
Abstract

This paper studies patient choice of provider following government reforms in the 2000s, which allowed for-profit surgical centers to compete with existing public National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England. For-profit providers offer significant benefits, notably shorter waiting times. We estimate the extent to which different types of patients benefit from the reforms, and we investigate mechanisms that cause differential benefits. Our counterfactual simulations show that, in terms of the value of access, entry of for-profit providers benefitted the richest patients twice as much as the poorest, and white patients six times as much as ethnic minority patients. Half of these differences is explained by healthcare geography and patient health, while primary care referral practice plays a lesser, though non-negligible role. We also show that, with capitated reimbursement, different compositions of patient risks between for-profit surgical centers and existing public hospitals put public hospitals at a competitive disadvantage.

摘要

本文研究了 21 世纪 00 年代政府改革后患者对医疗机构的选择,这些改革允许营利性外科中心在英格兰与现有的公立国民保健制度(NHS)医院竞争。营利性医疗机构提供了显著的优势,尤其是更短的等待时间。我们估计了不同类型的患者从改革中受益的程度,并研究了导致差异化受益的机制。我们的反事实模拟结果表明,就获取价值而言,营利性医疗机构的进入使最富有的患者受益程度是最贫困患者的两倍,使白人患者受益程度是少数族裔患者的六倍。这些差异的一半可以通过医疗保健地理和患者健康来解释,而初级保健转诊实践虽然作用不大,但也不可忽视。我们还表明,在按人头付费的情况下,营利性外科中心和现有公立医院之间患者风险的不同构成使公立医院处于竞争劣势。