IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v15y2020i3p355-369_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The reimbursement of new medical technologies in German inpatient care: What factors explain which hospitals receive innovation payments?

Author

Listed:
  • Ex, Patricia
  • Vogt, Verena
  • Busse, Reinhard
  • Henschke, Cornelia

Abstract

Most hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) provide payments for newly approved technologies. In Germany, they are negotiated between individual hospitals and health insurances. The aim of our study is to assess the functioning of temporary reimbursement mechanisms. We used multilevel logistic regression to examine factors at the hospital and state levels that are associated with agreeing innovation payments. Dependent variable was whether or not a hospital had successfully negotiated innovation payments in 2013 (n = 1532). Using agreement data of the yearly budget negotiations between each German hospital and representatives of the health insurances, the study comprises all German acute hospitals and innovation payments on all diagnoses. In total, 32.9% of the hospitals successfully negotiated innovation payments in 2013. We found that the chance of receiving innovation payments increased if the hospital was located in areas with a high degree of competition and if they were large, had university status and were private for-profit entities. Our study shows an implicit self-controlled selection of hospitals receiving innovation payments. While implicitly encouraging safety of patient care, policy makers should favour a more direct and transparent process of distributing innovation payments in prospective payment systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Ex, Patricia & Vogt, Verena & Busse, Reinhard & Henschke, Cornelia, 2020. "The reimbursement of new medical technologies in German inpatient care: What factors explain which hospitals receive innovation payments?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 355-369, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:355-369_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133119000124/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:355-369_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.