Khuntia Jiban, Ning Xue, Stacey Rulon
Business School, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, United States.
Business Department, University of Wisconsin Parkside, Kenosha, WI, United States.
JMIR Form Res. 2022 Mar 24;6(3):e32477. doi: 10.2196/32477.
How do health systems in the United States view the concept of merger and acquisition (M&A) in a post-COVID 19 "new normal"? How do new entrants to the market and incumbents influence horizontal and vertical integration of health systems? Traditionally, it has been argued that M&A activity is designed to reduce inequities in the market, shift toward value-based care, or enhance the number and quality of health care offerings in a given market. However, the recent history of M&A activity has yielded fewer noble results. As might be expected, the smaller the geographical region in which M&A activity is pursued, the higher the likelihood that monopolistic tendencies will result.
We focused on three types of competition perceptions, external environment uncertainty-related competition, technology disruption-driven competition, and customer service-driven competition, and two integration plans, vertical integration and horizontal integration. We examined (1) how health system characteristics help discern competition perceptions and integration decisions, and (2) how environment-, technology-, and service-driven competition aspects influence vertical and horizontal integration among US health systems in the post-COVID-19 new normal.
We used data for this study collected through a consultant from a robust group of health system chief executive officers (CEOs) across the United States from February to March 2021. Among the 625 CEOs, 135 (21.6%) responded to our survey. We considered competition and integration aspects from the literature and ratified them via expert consensus. We collected secondary data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Compendium of the US Health Systems, leading to a matched data set for 124 health systems. We used inferential statistical comparisons to assess differences across health systems regarding competition and integration, and we used ordered logit estimations to relate competition and integration.
Health systems generally have a high level of the four types of competition perceptions, with the greatest concern being technology disruption-driven competition rather than environment uncertainty-related competition and customer service-driven competition. The first set of estimation results showed that size, teaching status, revenue, and uncompensated care burden are the main contingent factors influencing the three competition perceptions. The second set of estimation results revealed the relationships between different competition perceptions and integration plans. For vertical integration, environment uncertainty-related competition had a significant positive influence (P<.001), while the influence of technology disruption-driven competition was significant but negative (P<.001). The influence of customer service-driven competition on vertical integration was not evident. For horizontal integration, the results were similar for environment uncertainty-related competition and technology disruption-driven competition; however, the significance of technology disruption-driven competition was weak (P=.05). The influence of customer service-driven competition in the combined model was significant and negative (P<.001).
Competition-driven integration has subtle influences across health systems. Environment uncertainty-related competition is a significant factor, with underlying contingent factors such as revenue concerns and leadership as the leading causes of integration plans. However, technology disruption may hinder integrations. Undoubtedly, small- and low-revenue health systems facing a high level of competition are likely to merge to navigate the health care business successfully. This trend should be a focus of policy to avoid monopolistic markets.
美国的医疗体系如何看待新冠疫情后“新常态”下的并购概念?市场新进入者和现有企业如何影响医疗体系的横向和纵向整合?传统观点认为,并购活动旨在减少市场不公平现象、转向基于价值的医疗模式,或增加特定市场的医疗服务数量并提高其质量。然而,近期的并购活动历史并未产生多少理想结果。不出所料,进行并购活动的地理区域越小,产生垄断倾向的可能性就越高。
我们聚焦于三种竞争认知类型,即与外部环境不确定性相关的竞争、技术颠覆驱动的竞争和客户服务驱动的竞争,以及两种整合计划,即纵向整合和横向整合。我们研究了:(1)医疗体系特征如何有助于辨别竞争认知和整合决策;(2)在新冠疫情后的新常态下,由环境、技术和服务驱动的竞争因素如何影响美国医疗体系之间的纵向和横向整合。
我们使用了2021年2月至3月通过顾问从美国一批实力雄厚的医疗体系首席执行官(CEO)那里收集的数据。在625位CEO中,135位(21.6%)回复了我们的调查。我们从文献中考虑了竞争和整合方面的因素,并通过专家共识进行了验证。我们从医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)的美国医疗体系汇编中收集了二手数据,从而得到了124个医疗体系的匹配数据集。我们使用推断统计比较来评估不同医疗体系在竞争和整合方面的差异,并使用有序逻辑回归估计来关联竞争和整合。
医疗体系通常对这四种竞争认知类型的程度较高,最令人担忧的是技术颠覆驱动的竞争,而非与环境不确定性相关的竞争和客户服务驱动的竞争。第一组估计结果表明,规模、教学地位、收入和未补偿医疗负担是影响这三种竞争认知的主要偶然因素。第二组估计结果揭示了不同竞争认知与整合计划之间的关系。对于纵向整合,与环境不确定性相关的竞争有显著的正向影响(P<.001),而技术颠覆驱动的竞争影响显著但为负向(P<.001)。客户服务驱动的竞争对纵向整合的影响不明显。对于横向整合,与环境不确定性相关的竞争和技术颠覆驱动的竞争结果相似;然而,技术颠覆驱动的竞争的显著性较弱(P=.05)。客户服务驱动的竞争在综合模型中的影响显著且为负向(P<.001)。
竞争驱动的整合对各医疗体系有着微妙的影响。与环境不确定性相关的竞争是一个重要因素,诸如对收入的担忧和领导力等潜在偶然因素是整合计划的主要原因。然而,技术颠覆可能会阻碍整合。毫无疑问,面临高度竞争的小型和低收入医疗体系可能会合并,以成功应对医疗业务。这一趋势应成为政策关注的焦点,以避免市场垄断。