Literature DB >> 19328568

Do markets respond to quality information? The case of fertility clinics.

M Kate Bundorf1, Natalie Chun, Gopi Shah Goda, Daniel P Kessler.   

Abstract

Although policymakers have increasingly turned to provider report cards as a tool to improve health care quality, existing studies provide mixed evidence on whether they influence consumer choices. We examine the effects of providing consumers with quality information in the context of fertility clinics providing Assisted Reproductive Therapies (ART). We report three main findings. First, clinics with higher birth rates had larger market shares after the adoption of report cards relative to before. Second, clinics with a disproportionate share of young, relatively easy-to-treat patients had lower market shares after adoption versus before. This suggests that consumers take into account information on patient mix when evaluating clinic outcomes. Third, report cards had larger effects on consumers and clinics from states with ART insurance coverage mandates. We conclude that consumers respond to quality report cards when choosing among providers of ART.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19328568     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.01.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Econ        ISSN: 0167-6296            Impact factor:   3.883


  18 in total

1.  Utilization of infertility treatments: the effects of insurance mandates.

Authors:  Marianne P Bitler; Lucie Schmidt
Journal:  Demography       Date:  2012-02

Review 2.  Public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals or organisations.

Authors:  Nicole A B M Ketelaar; Marjan J Faber; Signe Flottorp; Liv Helen Rygh; Katherine H O Deane; Martin P Eccles
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-11-09

3.  Considering potential benefits and consequences of hospital report cards: what are the next steps?

Authors:  Jesse D Schold; Lauren Hersch Nicholas
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  A framework for guiding efforts to reward value instead of volume.

Authors:  Taylor J Christensen
Journal:  Int J Health Econ Manag       Date:  2015-11-07

5.  Patients' Awareness, Usage and Impact of Hospital Report Cards in the US.

Authors:  Martin Emmert; Mark Schlesinger
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  The Effect of Publicized Quality Information on Home Health Agency Choice.

Authors:  Jeah Kyoungrae Jung; Bingxiao Wu; Hyunjee Kim; Daniel Polsky
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 3.929

7.  Reported effects of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients 5-tier rating system on US transplant centers: results of a national survey.

Authors:  Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Alvin G Thomas; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang; Macey L Henderson; Sarah S Stith; Dorry L Segev; Lauren Hersch Nicholas
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2018-06-10       Impact factor: 3.782

8.  Patient hospital choice for hip replacement: empirical evidence from the Netherlands.

Authors:  Puck D C Beukers; Ron G M Kemp; Marco Varkevisser
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-10-25

9.  Measurement Error in Discrete Health Facility Choice Models: an Example from Urban Senegal.

Authors:  Christopher J Cronin; David K Guilkey; Ilene S Speizer
Journal:  J Appl Econ (Chichester Engl)       Date:  2019-09-04

Review 10.  Determinants of patient choice of healthcare providers: a scoping review.

Authors:  Aafke Victoor; Diana M J Delnoij; Roland D Friele; Jany J D J M Rademakers
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 2.908

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.