IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jhecon/v28y2009i3p718-727.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do markets respond to quality information? The case of fertility clinics

Author

Listed:
  • Bundorf, M. Kate
  • Chun, Natalie
  • Goda, Gopi Shah
  • Kessler, Daniel P.

Abstract

Although policymakers have increasingly turned to provider report cards as a tool to improve health care quality, existing studies provide mixed evidence on whether they influence consumer choices. We examine the effects of providing consumers with quality information in the context of fertility clinics providing Assisted Reproductive Therapies (ART). We report three main findings. First, clinics with higher birth rates had larger market shares after the adoption of report cards relative to before. Second, clinics with a disproportionate share of young, relatively easy-to-treat patients had lower market shares after adoption versus before. This suggests that consumers take into account information on patient mix when evaluating clinic outcomes. Third, report cards had larger effects on consumers and clinics from states with ART insurance coverage mandates. We conclude that consumers respond to quality report cards when choosing among providers of ART.

Suggested Citation

  • Bundorf, M. Kate & Chun, Natalie & Goda, Gopi Shah & Kessler, Daniel P., 2009. "Do markets respond to quality information? The case of fertility clinics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 718-727, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:28:y:2009:i:3:p:718-727
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-6296(09)00005-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Kate Bundorf & Melinda Henne & Laurence Baker, 2007. "Mandated Health Insurance Benefits and the Utilization and Outcomes of Infertility Treatments," NBER Working Papers 12820, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Cutler, David & Landrum, Mary Beth & Huckman, Robert, 2004. "The Role of Information in Medical Markets: An Analysis of Publicly Reported Outcomes in Cardiac Surgery," Scholarly Articles 2640582, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    3. Bundorf, M. Kate & Chun, Natalie & Goda, Gopi Shah & Kessler, Daniel P., 2009. "Do markets respond to quality information? The case of fertility clinics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 718-727, May.
    4. Jin, Ginger Zhe & Sorensen, Alan T., 2006. "Information and consumer choice: The value of publicized health plan ratings," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 248-275, March.
    5. Wedig, Gerard J. & Tai-Seale, Ming, 2002. "The effect of report cards on consumer choice in the health insurance market," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 1031-1048, November.
    6. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    7. Ginger Zhe Jin & Alan T. Sorensen, 2005. "Information and Consumer Choice: The Value of Publicized Health Plan Ratings," NBER Working Papers 11514, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
    9. Beaulieu, Nancy Dean, 2002. "Quality information and consumer health plan choices," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 43-63, January.
    10. David M. Cutler & Robert S. Huckman & Mary Beth Landrum, 2004. "The Role of Information in Medical Markets: An Analysis of Publicly Reported Outcomes in Cardiac Surgery," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 342-346, May.
    11. Cardell, N. Scott, 1997. "Variance Components Structures for the Extreme-Value and Logistic Distributions with Application to Models of Heterogeneity," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 185-213, April.
    12. Marianne Bitler & Lucie Schmidt, 2006. "Health disparities and infertility: impacts of state-level insurance mandates," Department of Economics Working Papers 2006-04, Department of Economics, Williams College, revised Nov 2006.
    13. Leemore Dafny & David Dranove, 2008. "Do report cards tell consumers anything they don't already know? The case of Medicare HMOs," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 790-821, September.
    14. Scanlon, Dennis P. & Chernew, Michael & McLaughlin, Catherine & Solon, Gary, 2002. "The impact of health plan report cards on managed care enrollment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 19-41, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leemore Dafny & David Dranove, 2008. "Do report cards tell consumers anything they don't already know? The case of Medicare HMOs," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 790-821, September.
    2. Wang, Justin & Hockenberry, Jason & Chou, Shin-Yi & Yang, Muzhe, 2011. "Do bad report cards have consequences? Impacts of publicly reported provider quality information on the CABG market in Pennsylvania," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 392-407, March.
    3. Daniel Avdic & Tugba Bueyuekdurmus & Giuseppe Moscelli & Adam Pilny & Ieva Sriubaite, 2018. "Subjective and objective quality reporting and choice of hospital: Evidence from maternal care services in Germany," CINCH Working Paper Series 1803, Universitaet Duisburg-Essen, Competent in Competition and Health.
    4. Pope, Devin G., 2009. "Reacting to rankings: Evidence from "America's Best Hospitals"," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1154-1165, December.
    5. McCarthy, Ian M., 2018. "Quality disclosure and the timing of insurers’ adjustments: Evidence from medicare advantage," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 13-26.
    6. Werner, Rachel M. & Norton, Edward C. & Konetzka, R. Tamara & Polsky, Daniel, 2012. "Do consumers respond to publicly reported quality information? Evidence from nursing homes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 50-61.
    7. Avdic, Daniel & Moscelli, Giuseppe & Pilny, Adam & Sriubaite, Ieva, 2019. "Subjective and objective quality and choice of hospital: Evidence from maternal care services in Germany," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    8. Mariétou H. Ouayogodé & Kurt E. Schnier, 2021. "Patient selection in the presence of regulatory oversight based on healthcare report cards of providers: the case of organ transplantation," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 160-184, March.
    9. Chernew, Michael & Gowrisankaran, Gautam & Scanlon, Dennis P., 2008. "Learning and the value of information: Evidence from health plan report cards," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 156-174, May.
    10. Leemore Dafny & Kate Ho & Mauricio Varela, 2013. "Let Them Have Choice: Gains from Shifting Away from Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance and toward an Individual Exchange," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 32-58, February.
    11. Dunn, Abe, 2010. "The value of coverage in the medicare advantage insurance market," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 839-855, December.
    12. Suzanne Ruwaard & Rudy Douven, 2014. "Quality and hospital choice for cataract treatments: the winner takes most," CPB Discussion Paper 272, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    13. Bunnings, C,; & Schmitz, H,; & Tauchmann, H,; & Ziebarth, N.R,;, 2015. "How Health Plan Enrollees Value Prices Relative to Supplemental Benefits and Service Quality," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 15/02, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    14. Susan Lu & Huaxia Rui, 2014. "Can We Trust Online Physician Ratings? Evidence from Cardiac Surgeons in Florida," Working Papers 14-01, NET Institute.
    15. Christian Bünnings & Hendrik Schmitz & Harald Tauchmann & Nicolas R. Ziebarth, 2015. "How Health Plan Enrollees Value Prices Relative to Supplemental Benefits and Service Quality," Ruhr Economic Papers 0545, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    16. Zhao, Xin, 2016. "Competition, information, and quality: Evidence from nursing homes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 136-152.
    17. Taylor J. Christensen, 2016. "A framework for guiding efforts to reward value instead of volume," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 175-187, June.
    18. repec:zbw:rwirep:0545 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Kelaher, Margaret & Prang, Khic-Houy & Sabanovic, Hana & Dunt, David, 2019. "The impact of public performance reporting on health plan selection and switching: A systematic review and meta-analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 62-70.
    20. Xiaoxue Li, 2020. "Quality information disclosure and health insurance demand: evidence from VA hospital report cards," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 177-199, June.
    21. Susan Feng Lu, 2012. "Multitasking, Information Disclosure, and Product Quality: Evidence from Nursing Homes," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 673-705, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Report cards Information Quality Infertility;

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality

    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:eee:jhecon:v:28:y:2009:i:3:p:718-727. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505560 .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505560 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.