Why are health care report cards so bad (good)?
Abstract This paper provides a signaling-game theoretical foundation for empirically testing the effects of quality report cards in the U.S. health care industry. It shows that, when health care providers face an identical distribution of patient illness severities, the multidimensional measures in the existing report cards render them a mechanism that reveals the providers' qualities without causing them to select patients. However, non-identical patient type distributions between providers, attributed to the referring physician, may force the high-quality provider to shun patients in order to signal himself. Despite this imperfection, the existing report cards cause the minimum provider selection compared with alternative report mechanisms. Since the report cards not only may cause providers to select patients, but also cause patients to select providers, the single difference-in-differences estimates used in previous studies are not sufficient to indicate providers' selection behavior. In an updated empirical framework, a treatment effect shall be estimated once every period.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- Epstein, Andrew J., 2010. "Effects of report cards on referral patterns to cardiac surgeons," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 718-731, September.
- Mingshan Lu & Ching-to Albert Ma & Lasheng Yuan, 2003.
"Risk selection and matching in performance-based contracting,"
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 339-354.
- Mingshan Lu & Ching-to Albert Ma & Lasheng Yuan, 2000. "Risk Selection and Matching in Performance-Based Contracting," Papers 0101, Boston University - Industry Studies Programme.
- Gravelle, Hugh & Sivey, Peter, 2010. "Imperfect information in a quality-competitive hospital market," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 524-535, July.
- Ma, Ching-to Albert, 1994.
"Health Care Payment Systems: Cost and Quality Incentives,"
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(1), pages 93-112, Spring.
- Ching-to Albert Ma, 1994. "Health Care Payment Systems: Cost and Quality Incentives," Papers 0047, Boston University - Industry Studies Programme.
- Kyna Fong, 2007. "Evaluating Skilled Experts: Optimal Scoring Rules for Surgeons," Discussion Papers 07-043, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:30:y:2011:i:3:p:575-590. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.