Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality competition for screening and treatment services

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines how quality for one type of preventive health care services, screening services are determined under competition and explores its links with the treatment services. A Hotelling type of model is introduced for this purpose. Two providers offer both screening and treatment services, and decide on their quality for both services. The equilibrium quality values are characterized assuming providers are identical and patients are free to choose providers for screening and treatment independently. Screening quality and treatment quality are shown to be strategic complements. The social planner can achieve the desired quality level via appropriate reimbursements for screening and treatment of the disease at early and late stage. A sensitivity analysis investigates the effect of model parameters on the equilibrium quality levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barros, P., & Martinez-Giralt, X. (2002). Public and private provision of health care. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 11(1), 109–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beam, C., Conant, E., & Sickles, E. (2002). Factors affecting radiologists inconsistency in screening mammography. Academic Radiology, 9(5), 531–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beitia, A. (2003). Hospital quality choice and market structure in a regulated duopoly. Journal of Health Economics, 22, 1011–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglaiser, G., & Ma, C. (2003). Price and quality competition under adverse selection: market organization and efficiency. RAND Journal of Economics, 34(2), 266–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boer, F., de Koning, H., Warmerdam, P., Street, A., Friedman, E., & Woodman, C. (1998). Cost effectiveness of shortening screening interval or extending age range of NHS breast screening programme: computer simulation study. British Medical Journal, 317, 376–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • BreastScreen Australia (2004). National accreditation standards. http://www.breastscreen.info.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/br-accreditation/File/standards.pdf, retrieved on 31.05.2008.

  • Byrne, M., & Thompson, P. (2002). Screening and preventable illness. Journal of Health Economics, 20, 1077–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakley, M., & Malcomson, M. (2000). Government purchasing of health services. In A. Culyer & J. Newhouse (Eds.), Handbook of health economics (pp. 847–890). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, P. M. (1998). Cost benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach. Journal of Health Economics, 17(6), 7367–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggleston, K. (2002). Multi-tasking, competition and provider payment. Department of Economics Tufts University Discussion Paper 2001-01.

  • Ellis, R. (1998). Creaming, skimping and dumping: provider competition on the intensive and extensive margins. Journal of Health Economics, 17, 537–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, J. G., Miglioretti, D. L., Reisch, L. M., Barton, M. B., Kreuter, W., Christiansen, C. L., & Fletcher, S. (2002). Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94(18), 1373–1380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, J. G., Miglioretti, D. L., & Carney, A. P. (2003). Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? Part II. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95(2), 250–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esserman, L., Cowley, H., Eberle, C., Kirkpatrick, A., Chang, S., Berbaum, K., & Gale, A. (2002). Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume outcome relationship. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 94(5), 369–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuloria, P. C., & Zenios, S. A. (2001). Outcomes-adjusted reimbursement in a health care delivery system. Management Science, 47(6), 735–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gravelle, H. (1999). Capitation contracts: access and quality. Journal of Health Economics, 18, 315–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güneş, E., Chick, S. E., & Akşin, O. Z. (2004). Breast cancer screening services: trade-offs in quality, capacity, outreach, and centralization. Health Care Management Science, 7(4), 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer-Preventive Strategies (IARC) (2002). Breast cancer screening. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer Press.

  • Kan, A., Olivotto, I., Burhenne, L. W., Sickles, E., & Coldman, A. (2000). Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening programme. Radiology, 215, 563–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesteloot, K., & Voet, N. (1998). Incentives for cooperation in quality improvement among hospitals–the impact of the reimbursement system. Journal of Health Economics, 17, 701–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirch, R. L. A., & Klein, M. (1974). Surveillance schedules for medical examinations. Management Science, 20(10), 1403–1409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klabunde, C., Bouchard, F., Taplin, S., Scharpantgen, A., & Ballard-Barbash, R. (2001). Quality assurance for screening mammography: an international comparison. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 55, 204–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolata, G. (2003, December). 50 and ready for a colonoscopy? Doctors say wait is often long. NY Times.

  • Ma, C. (1994). Health care payment systems: cost and quality incentives. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 3(1), 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsubayashi, N. (2007). Price and quality competition: the effect of differentiation and vertical integration. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(2), 907–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michielutte, R., Sharp, P., Foley, K., Cunningham, L., Spangler, J., Paskett, E., & Case, L. (2005). Intervention to increase screening mammography among women 65 and older. Health Education Research, 20(2), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, M. (2002, June 27). Spotting breast cancer: doctors are weak link. NY Times.

  • Nodine, C. F., Kundel, H. L., Mello-Thoms, C., Weinstein, S. P., Orel, S. G., Sullivan, D. C., & Conant, E. F. (1999). How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Academic Radiology, 6(10), 575–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segnan, N. (1997). Socioeconomic status and cancer screening. IARC Scientific Publications, 138, 369–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sickles, E. A., Wolverton, D. E., & Dee, K. E. (2002). Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology, 224(3), 861–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK (2007). Retinal screening UK: Service objectives and quality assurance standards: release 5, January 2007. http://www.nscretinopathy.org.uk/resources/Service%20Objectives%20and%20Quality%20Assurance%20Standards%20-%20Release%205,%202007-01-02.doc, retrieved on 08/09/2008.

  • Wolinsky, A. (1997). Regulation of duopoly: managed competition vs regulated monopolies. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 6(14), 821–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelen, M. (1993). Optimal scheduling of examinations for the early detection of disease. Biometrika, 80(2), 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Administrative Sciences and Economics, Koç University, Rumeli Feneri Yolu, 34450 Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey

    Evrim D. Güneş

  2. Technology and Operations Management Area, INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77300, Fontainebleau, France

    Stephen E. Chick & Luk N. Van Wassenhove

Authors
  1. Evrim D. Güneş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen E. Chick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luk N. Van Wassenhove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evrim D. Güneş.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Güneş, E.D., Chick, S.E. & Van Wassenhove, L.N. Quality competition for screening and treatment services. Ann Oper Res 178, 201–222 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0645-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0645-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation