Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?

•Patients choose hospitals that improve their self-reported health.•Quality, as measured by readmission and mortality rates, is less important.•Healthier patients are more willing or able to travel for higher quality.•Quality competition in the English NHS is possible.•Potential for competition decl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of health economics 2016-12, Vol.50, p.230-246
Hauptverfasser: Gutacker, Nils, Siciliani, Luigi, Moscelli, Giuseppe, Gravelle, Hugh
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 246
container_issue
container_start_page 230
container_title Journal of health economics
container_volume 50
creator Gutacker, Nils
Siciliani, Luigi
Moscelli, Giuseppe
Gravelle, Hugh
description •Patients choose hospitals that improve their self-reported health.•Quality, as measured by readmission and mortality rates, is less important.•Healthier patients are more willing or able to travel for higher quality.•Quality competition in the English NHS is possible.•Potential for competition declines rapidly with distance between hospitals. The implications of hospital quality competition depend on what type of quality affects choice of hospital. Previous studies of quality and choice of hospitals have used crude measures of quality such as mortality and readmission rates rather than measures of the health gain from specific treatments. We estimate multinomial logit models of hospital choice by patients undergoing hip replacement surgery in the English NHS to test whether hospital demand responds to quality as measured by detailed patient reports of health before and after hip replacement. We find that a one standard deviation increase in average health gain increases demand by up to 10%. The more traditional measures of hospital quality are less important in determining hospital choice.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.08.001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5138156</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167629616301370</els_id><sourcerecordid>1844605556</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c699t-ad8906911b47be6c73c4ea2f519b0611cd36083930595adb88770af7f491799c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1P3DAQQC1EVRbav4Ai9cIlqR3HXz1Aq1VpKyH10qpHy3EmxFE2XmwHaf99DQsIeim-WPa8GXvmIXRKcEUw4R_HahzATGB9VedzhWWFMTlAKyKFKglv-CFa5YAoea34ETqOccR5MareoqNaMIWxlCtUrwfvLBS-LwYfty6Z6VPxZ3B2KNJue39_s5jJpV2xMSlBiBfv0JveTBHeP-wn6Pfl11_r7-XVz28_1l-uSsuVSqXppMJcEdI2ogVuBbUNmLpnRLWYE2I7yrGkimKmmOlaKYXAphd9o4hQytITdL6vu13aDXQW5hTMpLfBbUzYaW-cfhmZ3aCv_a1mhErCeC5w9lAg-JsFYtIbFy1Mk5nBL1ETKRusBJP1K1AuKVWsbl6BNg3HjN1_4MM_6OiXMOehZUpIkTtVMlN8T9ngYwzQP7VIsL6TrUf9KFvfydZY6iw7J54-H9BT2qPdDHzeA5A13ToIOloHs4XOBbBJd979742_Kvm71g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1878749198</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Gutacker, Nils ; Siciliani, Luigi ; Moscelli, Giuseppe ; Gravelle, Hugh</creator><creatorcontrib>Gutacker, Nils ; Siciliani, Luigi ; Moscelli, Giuseppe ; Gravelle, Hugh</creatorcontrib><description>•Patients choose hospitals that improve their self-reported health.•Quality, as measured by readmission and mortality rates, is less important.•Healthier patients are more willing or able to travel for higher quality.•Quality competition in the English NHS is possible.•Potential for competition declines rapidly with distance between hospitals. The implications of hospital quality competition depend on what type of quality affects choice of hospital. Previous studies of quality and choice of hospitals have used crude measures of quality such as mortality and readmission rates rather than measures of the health gain from specific treatments. We estimate multinomial logit models of hospital choice by patients undergoing hip replacement surgery in the English NHS to test whether hospital demand responds to quality as measured by detailed patient reports of health before and after hip replacement. We find that a one standard deviation increase in average health gain increases demand by up to 10%. The more traditional measures of hospital quality are less important in determining hospital choice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-6296</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1646</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.08.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27590088</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip ; Choice Behavior ; Competition ; Decision making models ; Demand ; Deviation ; Health ; Health gain ; Health services ; Healthcare ; Hip ; Hip replacement ; Hospital Mortality ; Hospitals ; Hospitals - standards ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Logit models ; Mortality ; Patient reported outcomes ; Quality ; Quality of care ; Quality of Health Care ; Readmission ; Standard deviation ; State Medicine ; Studies ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Journal of health economics, 2016-12, Vol.50, p.230-246</ispartof><rights>2016 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Dec 2016</rights><rights>2016 The Authors 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c699t-ad8906911b47be6c73c4ea2f519b0611cd36083930595adb88770af7f491799c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c699t-ad8906911b47be6c73c4ea2f519b0611cd36083930595adb88770af7f491799c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2833-0621 ; 0000-0002-0675-1564</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.08.001$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3541,27915,27916,30990,45986</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27590088$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gutacker, Nils</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siciliani, Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moscelli, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gravelle, Hugh</creatorcontrib><title>Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?</title><title>Journal of health economics</title><addtitle>J Health Econ</addtitle><description>•Patients choose hospitals that improve their self-reported health.•Quality, as measured by readmission and mortality rates, is less important.•Healthier patients are more willing or able to travel for higher quality.•Quality competition in the English NHS is possible.•Potential for competition declines rapidly with distance between hospitals. The implications of hospital quality competition depend on what type of quality affects choice of hospital. Previous studies of quality and choice of hospitals have used crude measures of quality such as mortality and readmission rates rather than measures of the health gain from specific treatments. We estimate multinomial logit models of hospital choice by patients undergoing hip replacement surgery in the English NHS to test whether hospital demand responds to quality as measured by detailed patient reports of health before and after hip replacement. We find that a one standard deviation increase in average health gain increases demand by up to 10%. The more traditional measures of hospital quality are less important in determining hospital choice.</description><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Decision making models</subject><subject>Demand</subject><subject>Deviation</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Health gain</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Healthcare</subject><subject>Hip</subject><subject>Hip replacement</subject><subject>Hospital Mortality</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Hospitals - standards</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Logit models</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Patient reported outcomes</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Quality of care</subject><subject>Quality of Health Care</subject><subject>Readmission</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>State Medicine</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>0167-6296</issn><issn>1879-1646</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1P3DAQQC1EVRbav4Ai9cIlqR3HXz1Aq1VpKyH10qpHy3EmxFE2XmwHaf99DQsIeim-WPa8GXvmIXRKcEUw4R_HahzATGB9VedzhWWFMTlAKyKFKglv-CFa5YAoea34ETqOccR5MareoqNaMIWxlCtUrwfvLBS-LwYfty6Z6VPxZ3B2KNJue39_s5jJpV2xMSlBiBfv0JveTBHeP-wn6Pfl11_r7-XVz28_1l-uSsuVSqXppMJcEdI2ogVuBbUNmLpnRLWYE2I7yrGkimKmmOlaKYXAphd9o4hQytITdL6vu13aDXQW5hTMpLfBbUzYaW-cfhmZ3aCv_a1mhErCeC5w9lAg-JsFYtIbFy1Mk5nBL1ETKRusBJP1K1AuKVWsbl6BNg3HjN1_4MM_6OiXMOehZUpIkTtVMlN8T9ngYwzQP7VIsL6TrUf9KFvfydZY6iw7J54-H9BT2qPdDHzeA5A13ToIOloHs4XOBbBJd979742_Kvm71g</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Gutacker, Nils</creator><creator>Siciliani, Luigi</creator><creator>Moscelli, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Gravelle, Hugh</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Sequoia S.A</general><general>Elsevier North Holland</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2833-0621</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0675-1564</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?</title><author>Gutacker, Nils ; Siciliani, Luigi ; Moscelli, Giuseppe ; Gravelle, Hugh</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c699t-ad8906911b47be6c73c4ea2f519b0611cd36083930595adb88770af7f491799c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Decision making models</topic><topic>Demand</topic><topic>Deviation</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Health gain</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Healthcare</topic><topic>Hip</topic><topic>Hip replacement</topic><topic>Hospital Mortality</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Hospitals - standards</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Logit models</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Patient reported outcomes</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Quality of care</topic><topic>Quality of Health Care</topic><topic>Readmission</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>State Medicine</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gutacker, Nils</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siciliani, Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moscelli, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gravelle, Hugh</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of health economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gutacker, Nils</au><au>Siciliani, Luigi</au><au>Moscelli, Giuseppe</au><au>Gravelle, Hugh</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of health economics</jtitle><addtitle>J Health Econ</addtitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>50</volume><spage>230</spage><epage>246</epage><pages>230-246</pages><issn>0167-6296</issn><eissn>1879-1646</eissn><abstract>•Patients choose hospitals that improve their self-reported health.•Quality, as measured by readmission and mortality rates, is less important.•Healthier patients are more willing or able to travel for higher quality.•Quality competition in the English NHS is possible.•Potential for competition declines rapidly with distance between hospitals. The implications of hospital quality competition depend on what type of quality affects choice of hospital. Previous studies of quality and choice of hospitals have used crude measures of quality such as mortality and readmission rates rather than measures of the health gain from specific treatments. We estimate multinomial logit models of hospital choice by patients undergoing hip replacement surgery in the English NHS to test whether hospital demand responds to quality as measured by detailed patient reports of health before and after hip replacement. We find that a one standard deviation increase in average health gain increases demand by up to 10%. The more traditional measures of hospital quality are less important in determining hospital choice.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>27590088</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.08.001</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2833-0621</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0675-1564</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-6296
ispartof Journal of health economics, 2016-12, Vol.50, p.230-246
issn 0167-6296
1879-1646
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5138156
source MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
Choice Behavior
Competition
Decision making models
Demand
Deviation
Health
Health gain
Health services
Healthcare
Hip
Hip replacement
Hospital Mortality
Hospitals
Hospitals - standards
Humans
Logistic Models
Logit models
Mortality
Patient reported outcomes
Quality
Quality of care
Quality of Health Care
Readmission
Standard deviation
State Medicine
Studies
Surgery
title Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T22%3A37%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Choice%20of%20hospital:%20Which%20type%20of%20quality%20matters?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20health%20economics&rft.au=Gutacker,%20Nils&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=50&rft.spage=230&rft.epage=246&rft.pages=230-246&rft.issn=0167-6296&rft.eissn=1879-1646&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.08.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1844605556%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1878749198&rft_id=info:pmid/27590088&rft_els_id=S0167629616301370&rfr_iscdi=true