Where Would You Go for Your Next Hospitalization? Kyoungrae Jung Penn State University Roger Feldman...
-
Upload
hilda-edwards -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Where Would You Go for Your Next Hospitalization? Kyoungrae Jung Penn State University Roger Feldman...
Where Would You Go for Your Next Hospitalization?
Kyoungrae JungPenn State University
Roger FeldmanUniversity of Minnesota
Dennis ScanlonPenn State University
1
Introduction
Providers vary in diverse dimensions of quality (clinical skills, interpersonal quality, outcomes of patients)
Consumers are likely to value each of these dimensions
It is often difficult for consumers to observe provider quality in health care markets
Improve consumer information for better decisions and better-performing health care markets
2
Introduction (II)
Recent efforts have focused on public release of comparative quality information
Often including clinical quality information Response has been small
Consumers may not value such information or they already know about it prior to public reporting
What types of quality information do consumers value and use in making health care decisions?
The answer can help to devise effective strategies to increase consumer information (Feldman et al., 2000; Harris & Buntin, 2008)
Few studies have examined this question
3
Research objective
To examine the effects of different dimensions of hospital quality in the context of a future hospital choice.
We focus on:
1) consumers’ perceptions of unobservable (to researchers) quality attributes, such as reputation
2) hospital clinical quality, whose indicators are often included in public reporting programs
3) consumers’ satisfaction ratings from their own recent experiences with hospitals
4
Literature on hospital choice
Consumers choose closer hospitals (Porell and Adams, 1995)
After release of report cards, consumers chose hospitals with mortality rates lower than expected (Mukamel et al., 2004/2005; Dranove and Sfekas, 2008)
Financial incentive for using “safer” hospitals has mixed effects on hospital choice (Scanlon et al., 2008)
5
Hospital quality and choice
Consumer’ perceptions about quality may play a significant role in hospital choice
Goal has been to obtain unbiased estimates of the impact of public quality information on choices
Research has relied on hospital fixed effects to control for consumers’ beliefs about unmeasured hospital quality
Captures multiple unmeasured quality attributes with a single variable
Can’t examine the relative contributions of different attributes to choice
6
Our approach
We utilize stated preference data to infer consumers’ perceptions about unobservable hospital attributes (e.g. reputation)
We estimate parameters representing consumers’ perceptions about several unmeasured hospital attributes
Allows us to measure the amount of each unobserved attribute offered by each hospital
Enables us to examine their relative contributions to consumer utility
7
Additional contribution
We introduce individual-level satisfaction ratings from their own experience to the hospital choice model
Certain important features of hospital quality can be evaluated only by experience
Consumers report they use experience to make health care decisions (Feldman et al., 2000; Schultz et al., 2001)
“Bad experience” or dissatisfaction did not motivate consumers to switch health plans (Abraham et al., 2006)
We estimate the impact of individual satisfaction ratings on hospital choice in terms of a driving time trade-off
8
Study setting and data Survey of employees at a large self-insured employer
Administered twice: April/May 2004 and Spring 2005 Random sample stratified by union status and recent
hospitalization Observations on 16 hospitals chosen by more than 15 people 969 hospitalized and 790 non-hospitalized people
Key variables from the survey Future hospital choice from a hypothetical question Stated preferences for four unobserved attributes: Overall
reputation, medical services, amenities, and OOP costs Future choice and preference data available for both users and
non-users Satisfaction with hospital for users on a 1 to 10 scale
9
Stated preferences
Example of reputation: “On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not at all valuable and 10 being extremely valuable, please rate each item.”
“The next time you decide which hospital to use for inpatient services, how valuable would you find: The hospital's overall reputation?”
Out-of-pocket cost Specialty medical services offered (e.g. cardiac bypass
surgery) Amenities (e.g. private rooms and convenient parking)
10
Other data sources
2005 Hospital Quality Initiative (HQI)
Hospitals’ clinical quality scores released in April 2005
Not publicly available during our study period
Compliance with Leapfrog safety standards (CPOE, IPS)
Publicly available on the Leapfrog website; posted on the TPA website during the 2nd round of the survey
Mapquest.com: driving time
AHA: profit, teaching status
11
Conceptual Model Based on the expected utility theory of decision making
(1)
Rj - hospital j’s clinical quality
Eij – consumer i’s beliefs about hospital j’s unobservable attributes
Dij - driving time
Xj – observable hospital characteristics
(2)
Ej – hospital-specific beliefs before experience Sij – satisfaction rating Iij – indicator of use (1 if consumer i used hospital j; 0 otherwise) h – weight given to experiential signal
12
ijjijijjij XDERU
)()1( ijijijjij IIShEhE
Model (2)
By substitution,
(3)
A consumer will choose hospital j in the future if
(4) for all k ≠ j
Estimate equation (3) by conditional logit analysis
13
ikij UU
ijjijij
ijijjjij
XDIh
IhSEhRU
)1(
Estimation
Two-stage estimation process:
Stage 1: Estimate hospital-specific beliefs (E j) about unobserved hospital attributes, using stated preference data from non-hospitalized (naïve) people
Stage 2: Estimate equation (3) -- how different dimensions of hospital quality influence future choice among hospitalized people, using parameters of consumers’ beliefs obtained from first stage
14
Estimating consumers’ perceptions (1st stage) Based on approach developed by Harris & Keane (1999);
used by Harris, Schultz & Feldman (2002)
Estimate choice model for non-hospitalized people that includes interactions between preference weights and hospital dummies
Preference weights on reputation, medical services, amenities, and OOP cost are variables
Coefficients represent average perceived amounts of unmeasured attributes possessed by each choice, relative to reference hospital
15
Other explanatory variables (1st stage) Driving time
Teaching status; Profit status
Observed HQI quality score
Compliance with the Leapfrog safety standards
HQI score * 2005 survey
Compliance * 2005 survey
Compliance * 2005 survey * union
16
Estimation of future hospital choice (2nd stage) Estimate conditional logit model among hospitalized
people as function of:
Parameters of consumers’ beliefs about unobserved attributes
HQI score Satisfaction with hospital used Indicator for use of hospital Other covariates as in 1st stage Compliance* 2005*union*used non-compliant hospital
Standard errors based on bootstrapping
17
Descriptive statistics
Driving time: 41.2 min (24.5 min) HQI scores: 72.1 Preference weights among non-hospitalized people
Reputation: 8.41 Medical services: 8.78 Amenities: 6.62 Out-of-pocket cost: 7.55
Satisfaction rating (among users): 8.11 Intention to use another hospital (among users): 31.7%
18
1st stage model for non-users: Preference weights for unobserved attributes
19
Coefficients Standard Errors
Reputation
Hospital 11 22.720*** 7.601
Hospital 12 19.748** 10.266
Hospital 14 31.814*** 11.351
Medical services
Hospital 5 41.985*** 12.902
Out-of-pocket costs
Hospital 1 -25.361*** 8.610
Hospital 2 -15.301** 7.180
Hospital 9 -13.370** 6.429
Hospital 11 -14.938*** 5.373
**: p<0.05; **:p<0.01
2nd stage future choice model for usersSpecification: I
Measured Hosp. Char.
Driving time -0.074***
For-profit -1.985***
Teaching 0.587***
Compliance 0.304**
Observed quality
HQI score 0.105***
Perceptual parameters
Reputation
Medical services
Out-of-pocket cost
Experiential measures
Satisfaction rating
Use indicator
20
II
-0.079***
-0.094
-2.147***
-1.047***
0.046***
0.824***
1.148***
0.465***
Impact of HQI score (Model II)
Consumers perceive clinical quality as a distinctive feature of hospital quality
Consumers correctly infer clinical quality before public disclosure.
Marginal effect of HQI score:
4%-point increase in market share for 1 SD increase in score
Much smaller than those of beliefs about medical services (13% points) or reputation (18.4% points).
21
2nd stage future choice model for users
22
III
-0.044***
0.075
-1.945***
-0.815***
0.030
0.725***
0.833***
0.458***
0.817***
3.227***
Specification: I
Measured Hosp. Char.
Driving time -0.074***
For-profit -1.985***
Teaching 0.587***
Compliance 0.304**
Observed quality
HQI score 0.105***
Perceptual parameters
Reputation
Medical services
Out-of-pocket cost
Experiential measures
Satisfaction rating
Use indicator
II
-0.079***
-0.094
-2.147***
-1.047***
0.046***
0.824***
1.148***
0.465***
Our approach vs. Fixed effects
23
IIIHospital
Fixed Effects
Driving time -0.044*** -0.047***
Perceptual parameters
Reputation 0.725*** -
Medical services 0.833*** -
Out-of-pocket cost 0.458*** -
Experiential measures
Satisfaction rating 0.817*** 0.818***
Use indicator 3.227*** 3.245***
Large impacts of consumers’ perceptions, satisfaction, and use (Model IV)1. 1 SD increases in medical services and reputation would
increase a hospital’s market share from 20% to 33.3% and 31.6%, respectively
2. 1 SD increase in satisfaction (2.17 on 1-10 scale) would increase the hospital’s market share from 20% to 33%
Consumer would drive 18.6 minutes farther to use a hospital with 1 SD better satisfaction rating
3. Marginal effect of use: 64 %-points
24
25
Weights on physician recommendation
Admission throughemergency room
Top tertile Bottom Yes No
Perceptual parameters
Reputation 0.776*** 0.873*** 0.883*** 0.574***
Medical services 1.085*** 0.812*** 0.807*** 0.862***
Out-of-pocket costs 0.399*** 0.628*** 0.632*** 0.304***
Experiential measures
Satisfaction rating 0.794*** 1.036*** 0.883*** 0.772***
Use indicator 3.528*** 3.163*** 3.086*** 3.318***
Sensitivity Analysis
Summary of results: future hospital choice Naïve consumers perceive differences in reputation, medical
services, and OOP costs across hospitals
Large effects of consumers’ beliefs about unobservable attributes are consistent with a study on health plan choice
Consumers may already know about hospital clinical quality prior to public reporting; its contribution to hospital choice is small
Positive effect of satisfaction is inconsistent with a study of health plan choice
Large effect of prior use is consistent with prior literature
26
Limitations
Hypothetical future choices may differ from actual choices But we avoid potential bias associated with repeated
hospitalizations
Stated preference data were collected from non-hospitalized people during a survey window Did not control for “ever” use May not be as naïve as we think Data were obtained by prospective questions
We can only estimate average, hospital-specific beliefs We obtain average beliefs for each attribute Use indicator may partially capture individual heterogeneity
27
Discussion
Recent trend for “report cards” to include information about satisfaction CMS initiated Hospital CAHPS in 2008
Inexperienced consumers may turn to report cards that contain quality measures based on others’ experience
Consider publicizing information about hospital reputation or medical services May represent what consumers would like to see May increase consumers’ responses to “report cards.”
28
Discussion (II)
Efforts are needed to increase awareness and use of public quality information to overcome effects of “use” and consumers’ beliefs Employers’ initiatives
Ensure that physicians are informed about hospital quality and incorporate it in their recommendations
What are effective strategies to increase consumer information and improve performance of health care markets?
29