This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The effect of practice budgets on patient waiting times: allowing for selection bias

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Mark Dusheiko (National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)
Hugh Gravelle (National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)
Rowena Jacobs (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Under the UK fundholding scheme, general practices could elect to hold a budget to meet the costs of some types of elective surgery (chargeable admissions) for their patients. It was alleged that patients of fundholding practices had shorter waits for elective surgery than the patients of non-fundholders. Comparison of waiting times between fundholding and non-fundholding practices are potentially confounded by selection bias as fundholding was voluntary. We estimate the effect of a practice's fundholding status on the waiting times of its patients using both cross-sectional methods (OLS, propensity score, instrumental variables, Heckman selection correction and Heckman heterogenous effects estimators) and difference in differences methodologies to correct for selection bias. The estimated effect of fundholding status was to significantly reduce the waiting times for chargeable admissions of the patients of fundholders by 4.1-6.6% (or 4-7 days) with the instrumental variables and Heckman selection correction estimators yielding the highest estimates. We also find that patients of fundholding practices had shorter waits (by 3.7% or 2 days) for non-chargeable elective admissions, suggesting that fundholders were able to obtain shorter waits for all types of elective admissions. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.937
File Format: text/html
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 13 (2004)
Issue (Month): 10 ()
Pages: 941-958
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:10:p:941-958

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Christopher F Baum & Mark E. Schaffer & Steven Stillman, 2002. "Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 545, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 14 Feb 2003. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. James J. Heckman & Justin L. Tobias & Edward Vytlacil, 2000. "Simple Estimators for Treatment Parameters in a Latent Variable Framework with an Application to Estimating the Returns to Schooling," NBER Working Papers 7950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Davis, George C. & Kim, Sung-Yong, 2002. "Measuring instrument relevance in the single endogenous regressor-multiple instrument case: a simplifying procedure," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 321-325, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Hugh Gravelle & Peter C. Smith & Ana Xavier, . "Waiting Times and Waiting Lists: A Model of the Market for Elective Surgery," Discussion Papers 00/27, Department of Economics, University of York. [Downloadable!]
  5. Propper, Carol & Croxson, Bronwyn & Shearer, Arran, 2002. "Waiting times for hospital admissions: the impact of GP fundholding," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 227-252, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  6. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2000. "Evaluation methods for non-experimental data," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 21(4), pages 427-468, January. [Downloadable!]
  7. James Heckman & Justin L. Tobias & Edward Vytlacil, 2003. "Simple Estimators for Treatment Parameters in a Latent-Variable Framework," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(3), pages 748-755, 06. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  8. Heckman, James J. & Lalonde, Robert J. & Smith, Jeffrey A., 1999. "The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1865-2097 Elsevier. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Mark Dusheiko & Hugh Gravelle & Rowena Jacobs & Peter Smith, 2003. "The Effects of Budgets on Doctors Behaviour: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 03/064, Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  10. Arild Aakvik & James J. Heckman & Edward J. Vytlacil, 2000. "Treatment Effects for Discrete Outcomes when Responses to Treatment Vary Among Observationally Identical Persons: An Application to Norwegian ..," NBER Technical Working Papers 0262, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Sascha O. Becker & Andrea Ichino, 2002. "Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(4), pages 358-377, November. [Downloadable!]
  12. Whynes, David K. & Ennew, Christine T. & Feighan, Teresa, 1999. "Entrepreneurial attitudes of primary health care physicians in the United Kingdom," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 331-347, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Mark Dusheiko & Maria Goddard & Hugh Gravelle & Rowena Jacobs, 2006. "Trends in health care commissioning in the English NHS: an empirical analysis," Working Papers 011cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York. [Downloadable!]
  2. Carol Propper, 2005. "Why economics is good for your health. 2004 Royal Economic Society Public Lecture," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 987-997. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  3. Mark Dusheiko & Maria Goddard & Hugh Gravelle & Rowena Jacobs, 2008. "Explaining trends in concentration of healthcare commissioning in the English NHS," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(8), pages 907-926. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? The most prolific authors have over 700 items listed on IDEAS.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-16.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.