| Literature DB >> 36158130 |
Chenxi Xu1, Li Luo1, Siyu Zeng2, Xiaozhou He1, Jialing Li3, Guiju Zhu3.
Abstract
Medical overuse is the leading cause of high expenditure among healthcare systems worldwide, with the degree varying from region to region. There is increasing evidence to indicate that in China, National Healthcare Security Administration (NHSA) supervision plays the most crucial role in decreasing medical overuse. For medical overuse, traditional studies focus on empirical researches and qualitative analysis, most of which ignore how the two important participants, i.e., medical institutions and NHSA, affect the strategy of each other. To reduce the losses incurred by insufficient supervision, this study starts from bounded rationality, builds an evolutionary game model to study the relations between the NHSA and medical institutions, and reveals the dynamic evolution process of the supervision of NHSA and overuse of medical institutions. Through stable evolutionary strategy analysis, numerical simulation results, and sensitive experiments under diverse scenarios, we found that when profit gap of medical overuse is high or low, medical institution will adopt fixed strategy, which is medical overuse or appropriate medical use. Only when the profit gap is at a medium level will NHSA's choice affects medical institutions' strategy. Furthermore, NHSA's strategy is affected by the profit gap between medical use and supervision cost. Our work enriches the understanding of supervision for medical overuse and provides theoretical support for the NHSA to make decisions to reach an ideal condition, i.e., to supervise without exertion.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36158130 PMCID: PMC9492337 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4351282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Parameter symbol descriptions in the evolutionary game.
| Stakeholders | Parameters | Descriptions |
|---|---|---|
| Medical institutions |
| Revenue of appropriate medical use |
|
| Revenue of medical overuse | |
|
| Revenue of reputation given by NHSA because of appropriate medical use | |
|
| Penalty from NHSA because of medical overuse behaviour discovered | |
|
| Reputation loss because of medical overuse behaviour discovered such as decreased credibility and reduced number of patients | |
|
| Probability of patients questioning and complaining about medical institutions' medical overuse | |
|
| Probability of medical institutions adopting appropriate medical use | |
| NHSA |
| All the costs of NHSA offering strict supervision |
|
| Cost and loss to NHSA's verification behaviour because of medical overuse behaviour complained by patients, mainly including: verification cost, credibility decline, and reputation loss | |
|
| Probability of NHSA offering strict supervision |
The payoff matrix of the model.
| Medical institutions | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate medical use ( | Medical overuse (1 − | ||
| NHSA | Strict supervision ( | − | − |
| Loose supervision (1 − | 0, |
| |
The det J and trac J at each LEP.
| LEP | det | trac |
|---|---|---|
| (0,0) | [(1 − |
|
| (0,1) |
| −[ |
| (1,0) | −[(1 − |
|
| (1,1) | −( |
|
| ( | -AB | 0 |
Note: AB denotes ((R1 − R2 + R3 + F + M)∗[R1 − R2 + θ(F + M)])/(R3 + (1 − θ)(F + M))∗(C1[(1 − θ)F + θC2 − C1])/((1 − θ)F + θC2).
The evolutionary stability of each LEP.
| Scenarios | LEP | det | trac | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario 1: | (0,0) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point |
| (0,1) | + | — | ESS | |
| (1,0) | + | + | Unstable | |
| (1,1) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| Scenario 2: | (0,0) | + | — | ESS |
| (0,1) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| (1,0) | + | + | Unstable | |
| (1,1) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| Scenario 3: | (0,0) | + | — | ESS |
| (0,1) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| (1,0) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| (1,1) | + | + | Unstable | |
| Scenario 4: | (0,0) | + | + | Unstable |
| (0,1) | + | — | ESS | |
| (1,0) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| (1,1) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| Scenario 5: | (0,0) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point |
| (0,1) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| (1,0) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| (1,1) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| ( | + | 0 | Central point | |
| Scenario 6: | (0,0) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point |
| (0,1) | — | Uncertain | Saddle point | |
| (1,0) | + | — | ESS | |
| (1,1) | + | + | Unstable |
Relationship between ESS and levels of profit gap and supervision cost.
| Level of profit gap | Level of supervision cost | Equilibrium stable strategies | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NHSA | Medical institutions | ||
| High | High | Loose supervision | Medical overuse |
| Low | Strict supervision | Medical overuse | |
| Medium | High | Loose supervision | Medical overuse |
| Low | — | — | |
| Low | High | Loose supervision | Appropriate medical use |
| Low | Loose supervision | Appropriate medical use | |
Figure 1The evolutionary processes of six scenarios.
Initial parameters setting in Scenario 5.
| Parameters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Scenario 5 | 90 | 140 | 20 | 40 | 35 | 20 | 0.6 | 20 |
Initial parameter setting in Scenario 6.
| Parameters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Scenario 6 | 80 | 150 | 10 | 40 | 15 | 20 | 0.6 | 5 |
Figure 2Evolution results of Scenario 5 under different behaviour ratios.
Figure 3Evolution process of Scenario 5 under different ΔR values.
Figure 4Evolution process of Scenario 5 under different C1 values.
Figure 5Evolution process of Scenario 6 under different ΔR values.
Figure 6Evolution process of Scenario 6 under different C1 values.
Figure 7Evolution process of Scenario 6 under different θ values.