| Title |
Impacts of Health Insurance Benefit Design on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Use and Inpatient Costs among Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction in Shanghai, China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-013-0079-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Suwei Yuan, Yan Liu, Na Li, Yunting Zhang, Zhe Zhang, Jingjing Tao, Lizheng Shi, Hude Quan, Mingshan Lu, Jin Ma |
| Abstract |
Currently, the most popular hospital payment method in China is fee-for-service (FFS) with a global budget cap. As of December 2009, a policy change means that heart stents are covered by public health insurance, whereas previously they were not. This policy change provides us an opportunity to study how a change in insurance benefit affected the quantity and quality of hospital services. The new policy introduced incentives for both patients and providers: it encourages patient demand for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) services and stent use (moral hazard effect), and discourages hospital supply due to the financial pressures of the global cap (provider gaming effect). If the provider's gaming effect dominates the moral hazard effect, actual utilisation and costs might go down, and vice versa. Our hypothesis is that patients in the higher reimbursement groups will have fewer PCIs and lower inpatient costs. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 11% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2015.
All research outputs
#20,200,843
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,747
of 1,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,656
of 199,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.