Choice in the presence of experts: The role of general practitioners in patients' hospital choice

The elicitation of patient and physician preferences for calculating consumer-based composite measures on hospital report cards: results of two discrete choice experiments

PURPOSE

The calculation of aggregated composite measures is a widely used strategy to reduce the amount of data on hospital report cards. Therefore, this study aims to elicit and compare preferences of both patients as well as referring physicians regarding publicly available hospital quality information METHODS: Based on systematic literature reviews as well as qualitative analysis, two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were applied to elicit patients' and referring physicians' preferences. The DCEs were conducted using a fractional factorial design. Statistical data analysis was performed using multinomial logit models RESULTS: Apart from five identical attributes, one specific attribute was identified for each study group, respectively. Overall, 322 patients (mean age 68.99) and 187 referring physicians (mean age 53.60) were included. Our models displayed significant coefficients for all attributes (p < 0.001 each). Among patients, "Postoperative complication rate" (20.6%; level range of 1.164) was rated highest, followed by "Mobility at hospital discharge" (19.9%; level range of 1.127), and ''The number of cases treated" (18.5%; level range of 1.045). In contrast, referring physicians valued most the ''One-year revision surgery rate'' (30.4%; level range of 1.989), followed by "The number of cases treated" (21.0%; level range of 1.372), and "Postoperative complication rate" (17.2%; level range of 1.123) CONCLUSION: We determined considerable differences between both study groups when calculating the relative value of publicly available hospital quality information. This may have an impact when calculating aggregated composite measures based on consumer-based weighting.

Assessing competition in the hip implant industry in the light of recent policy guidance

NHS procurement is a highly topical area, attracting a great deal of recent policy focus. The pivotal report by Lord Carter of Coles (2016) highlighted unwarranted variation, estimating it to be worth approximately £5bn in efficiency savings. In relation to hip replacement surgery, recent procurement policy guidance has recommended the use of cemented hip implants for all patients aged 68 years and over in England and Wales. Previous work established that the hip implant supplying market was very concentrated, with only a few large suppliers, especially for cemented implants. The advocated major shift towards cemented implants would almost certainly increase further the market share of the dominant manufacturer of cemented sector thus raising potential competition and welfare issues. We carry out a market study to establish whether there might be a potential competition concern, using data from the National Joint Registry (2005-2018, 37 suppliers, nearly 700 models). We first establish the structure of the industry with a specific focus on seller concentration. Secondly we evaluate the dynamics underlying concentration in the market, assessing the innovative performance of the sector using a novel statistical analysis of the dynamics of market shares. We then look to three comparable but alternative markets for similarities or differences to the THR implant industry. We find a high and increasingly concentrated oligopolistic and static market structure, largely devoid of dynamics and with no real sign of innovation. These findings are further emphasized when compared with the three close alternative markets. Although this stability could just be a mature market where technical advances have already taken place, our findings highlight the potential welfare and policy implications of concentrating on cemented fixation. Given the current emphasis on efficiency in procurement, it is essential that there should also be scrutiny of the firms dealing with public procurement.

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

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.