| Title |
The impact of global budgeting on treatment intensity and outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Health Economics and Management, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10754-014-9150-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kamhon Kan, Shu-Fen Li, Wei-Der Tsai |
| Abstract |
This paper investigates the effects of global budgets on the amount of resources devoted to cardio-cerebrovascular disease patients by hospitals of different ownership types and these patients' outcomes. Theoretical models predict that hospitals have financial incentives to increase the quantity of treatments applied to patients. This is especially true for for-profit hospitals. If that's the case, it is important to examine whether the increase in treatment quantity is translated into better treatment outcomes. Our analyses take advantage of the National Health Insurance of Taiwan's implementation of global budgets for hospitals in 2002. Our data come from the National Health Insurance's claim records, covering the universe of hospitalized patients suffering acute myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, hemorrhagic stroke, and ischemic stroke. Regression analyses are carried out separately for government, private not-for-profit and for-profit hospitals. We find that for-profit hospitals and private not-for-profit hospitals did increase their treatment intensity for cardio-cerebrovascular disease patients after the 2002 implementation of global budgets. However, this was not accompanied by an improvement in these patients' mortality rates. This reveals a waste of medical resources and implies that aggregate expenditure caps should be supplemented by other designs to prevent resources misallocation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| India | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 20% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 24% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 14% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,517,992
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#156
of 274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,102
of 241,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 241,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.