Literature DB >> 24306855

Assessing the effectiveness of health care cost containment measures: evidence from the market for rehabilitation care.

Nicolas R Ziebarth1.   

Abstract

This study empirically evaluates the effectiveness of different health care cost containment measures. The measures investigated were introduced in Germany in 1997 to reduce moral hazard and public health expenditures in the market for rehabilitation care. Of the analyzed measures, doubling the daily copayments was clearly the most effective cost containment measure, resulting in a reduction in utilization of about [Formula: see text] . Indirect measures such as allowing employers to cut federally mandated sick pay or paid vacation during inpatient post-acute care stays did not significantly reduce utilization. There is evidence neither for adverse health effects nor for substitution effects in terms of more doctor visits.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24306855     DOI: 10.1007/s10754-013-9138-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ        ISSN: 1389-6563


  25 in total

1.  Health status and the demand for health. Results on price elasticities.

Authors:  G J Wedig
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Deductibles and health care expenditures: empirical estimates of price sensitivity based on administrative data.

Authors:  René C J A van Vliet
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2004-12

3.  The effect of prospective payment on admission and treatment policy: evidence from inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

Authors:  Neeraj Sood; Peter J Huckfeldt; David C Grabowski; Joseph P Newhouse; José J Escarce
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Consumer-directed health plans and the RAND Health Insurance Experiment.

Authors:  Joseph P Newhouse
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Shifted deductibles for high risks: more effective in reducing moral hazard than traditional deductibles.

Authors:  R C van Kleef; W P M M van de Ven; R C J A van Vliet
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2008-10-04       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Why U.S. health care expenditure and ranking on health care indicators are so different from Canada's.

Authors:  A H G M Spithoven
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2008-07-01

7.  Copayments for ambulatory care in Germany: a natural experiment using a difference-in-difference approach.

Authors:  Jonas Schreyögg; Markus M Grabka
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2009-09-16

8.  Does privatisation of vocational rehabilitation improve labour market opportunities? Evidence from a field experiment in Sweden.

Authors:  Lisa Laun; Peter Skogman Thoursie
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  How do doctors behave when some (but not all) of their patients are in managed care?

Authors:  Sherry Glied; Joshua Graff Zivin
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

10.  Pharmacy benefits and the use of drugs by the chronically ill.

Authors:  Dana P Goldman; Geoffrey F Joyce; Jose J Escarce; Jennifer E Pace; Matthew D Solomon; Marianne Laouri; Pamela B Landsman; Steven M Teutsch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-05-19       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  2 in total

1.  Causal inference in multi-state models-sickness absence and work for 1145 participants after work rehabilitation.

Authors:  Jon Michael Gran; Stein Atle Lie; Irene Øyeflaten; Ørnulf Borgan; Odd O Aalen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 3.295

2.  Age Structural Transitions and Copayment Policy Effectiveness: Evidence from Taiwan's National Health Insurance System.

Authors:  Ya-Ling Lin; Wen-Yi Chen; Shwn-Huey Shieh
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 3.390

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.