| Title |
Assessing the effectiveness of health care cost containment measures: evidence from the market for rehabilitation care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Health Economics and Management, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10754-013-9138-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolas R. Ziebarth |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
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 05 May 2023.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#174
of 274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,229
of 320,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 320,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.