Suppr超能文献

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.

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。

相似文献

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.
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.

引用本文的文献

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.

本文引用的文献

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.
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.
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.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验