Health Care Management Science

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 5–17 | Cite as

Explaining Source of Payment Differences in U.S. Cesarean Rates: Why do Privately Insured Mothers Receive More Cesareans than Mothers Who are not Privately Insured?

Article

Abstract

The difference in the risk-adjusted cesarean rates of mothers who are and who are not privately insured is divided into components attributable to the following four factors: the practice style of the physician attending the birth, the closeness of the physician-mother relationship, individual nonclinical factors, and the direct influence of private insurance on the physician’s treatment decision. Estimates from two expansive, complementary data sets indicate that the most of the differential is attributable to the first two factors, particularly the pairing of privately insured mothers with physicians who are inclined to perform cesareans. There is some evidence that these pairings are not incidental but the result of firm (and possibly consumer) choices.

Keywords

cesarean section source of payment private insurance physician practice style 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Abitbol, I. Castillo, U. Taylor, B. Rochester, S. Shmoys and A. Monheit, Vaginal birth after cesarean section: The patient’s point of view, American Family Physician 47 (1993) 129–134.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    G.M. Anderson and J. Lomas, Explaining variations in cesarean section rates: Patients, facilities or policies? Canadian Medical Association Journal 132 (1985) 253–259.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    D. Aron, H. Gordon, D. DiGiuseppe, D. Harper and G. Rosenthal, Variations in risk-adjusted cesarean delivery rates according to race and health insurance, Medical Care 38(1) (2000) 35–44.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    L. Baker and A. Royalty, Medicaid policy, physician behavior and health care for the low-income population, Journal of Human Resources 35 (2000) 480–502.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    F.C. Barros, J.P. Vaughan, C.G. Victoria and S.P.A. Huttly, Epidemic of cesarean sections in Brazil, Lancet 338 (1991) 167–169.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    K. Bayard, J. Hellerstein, D. Neumark and K. Troske, New evidence on sex segregation and sex differences in wages from matched employee-employer data, Journal of Labor Economics 21 (2003) 887–922.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Bertollini, D DiLallo et al., Cesarean section rates in Italy by hospital payment mode: an analysis based on birth certificates, American Journal of Public Health 82 (1992) 257–261.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Booth and N. Babchuk, Seeking health care from new resources, J Health Soc Behav 13 (1972) 90–99.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. Braverman, S. Egerter, F. Edmonston and M. Verdon, Racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of cesarean delivery, California, American Journal of Public Health 85 (1995) 25–630.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    W. Cai, J. Marks, C. Chen, Y. Zhaung, L. Morris and J. Harris, Increased cesarean section rates and emerging patterns of health insurance in Shanghai, China, American Journal of Public Health 88 (1998) 777–780.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    F. Carlsen and J. Grytten, Consumer satisfaction and supplier induced demand, Journal of Health Economics 19 (2000) 731–753.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    V.K. Chetty, Stochastic technology, production organization and costs, Journal of Health Economics 17 (1998) 129–246.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. DeMott and H. Sandmire, The Green Bay cesarean section study 1: The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth rates, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 162 (1990) 1593–1599.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Dranove,The Economic Evolution of American Health Care (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    C.E. Dugowson and S. K. Holland, Physicians as patients–the use of obstetric technology in physician families, Western Journal of Medicine 146 (1987) 494–496.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M.G. Goldfarb, Who receives cesareans: Patient and hospital characteristics, National Center for Health Services Research, Rockville, MD (1984).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J.B. Gould, B. Davey and R. Stafford, Socioeconomic differences in cesarean sections, New England Journal of Medicine 321 (1989) 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    G.I. Goyert, S.F. Bottoms, M.C. Treadwell and P.C. Nehra, The physician factor in cesarean birth rates, New England Journal of Medicine 320 (1989) 706–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. Grant, Race and cesarean delivery in Florida, The Review of Black Political Economy 28(1) (2000) 37–47.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    W. Greene, 5e,Econometric Analysis (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2002).Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    K.D. Gregory, L.M. Korst, P. Cane, L.D. Platt and K. Kahn, Vaginal birth after cesarean and uterine rupture in California, Obstetrics and Gynecology 94 (1999) 985–989.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. Gruber, J. Kim and D. Mayzlin, Physician fees and procedure intensity: The case of cesarean delivery, Journal of Health Economics 18 (1999) 473–490.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Gruber and M. Owings, Physician financial incentives and cesarean section delivery, Rand Journal of Economics 27 (1996) 99–123.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Haas, S. Udvarhelyi and A. Epstein, The effect of health coverage for uninsured pregnant women on maternal health and the use of cesarean section, JAMA 270 (1993) 61–64.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    J. Hadley, J. Hoffma and J. Feder, Relationships between health insurance coverage and selected health and hospital use characteristics of newborns and pregnant women, Washington, D.C.: Center for Health Policy Studies, Georgetown University (1989).Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    R. Hausknecht and J. Heilman,Having a Cesarean Baby (E.P. Dutton, New York, 1982).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    R. Haynes de Regt, H.L. Minkoff, J. Feldman and R.H. Schwartz, Relation of private or clinic care to the cesarean section birth rate, New England Journal of Medicine 315 (1986) 619–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    O.A. Henry, K.D. Gregory, C.J. Hobel and L.D. Platt, Using ICD-9 codes to identify indications for primary and repeat cesarean sections: agreement with clinical records, American Journal of Public Health 85 (1995) 1143–1146.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    M. Hurst and P. Summey, Childbirth and social class: The case of cesarean delivery, Social Science and Medicine 18 (1984) 621–631.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    G.F. Joseph, C. Steadman and A. Robichaux, Vaginal birth after cesarean section: The impact ofpatient resistance to a trial of labor, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 164 (1991) 1441–1444.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    R. Kaestner, Health insurance, quantity and quality of pre-natal care and infant health, Inquiry 36 (1999) 162–175.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    E. Keeler and M. Brodie, Economic incentives in the choice between vaginal delivery and cesarean section, The Milbank Quarterly 71(3) (1993) 365–404.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    A. Localio, A. Lawthers, J. Bengtson, L. Hebert, S. Weaver, T. Brennan and J. R. Landis, Relationship between malpractice claims and cesarean delivery, JAMA 269(3) (1993) 366–373.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    D. Macpherson and B. Hirsch, Wages and gender composition: Why do women’s jobs pay less? Journal of Labor Economics 13 (1995) 426–471.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    H.I. Marieskind, An evaluation of caesarean section in the United States, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington D.C. (1979).Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    E. Miller, J. Partezana and R. Montgomery, Vaginal birth after cesarean: A 5-year experience in a family practice residency program, Journal of the American Board of Family Practitioners 8 (1995) 357–360.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    S.F. Murray, Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: Qualitative and quantitative study, British Medical Journal, 321 (2000) 1501–1505.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    D.M. Oleske, G.L. Glandon, G.J. Giacomelli and S.S. Hohmann, The cesarean birth rate: Influence of hospital teaching status, Health Services Research, 26 (1991) 325–338.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    D.K. Onion, D.L. Meyer, D.E. Wennberg and D.N. Soule, Primary cesarean section rates in uninsured, medicaid and insured populations of predominantly rural northern New England, The Journal of Rural Health 15 (1999) 108–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    Public Citizen.Unnecessary Cesarean Sections: Curing a National Epidemic (Public Citizen, Washington, 1994).Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    C. Sakala, Medically unnecessary cesarean section births: Introduction to a symposium, Social Science and Medicine 37(10) (1993) 1177–1198.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    E. Shearer, Cesarean section: Medical benefits and costs, Social Science and Medicine 37 (1993) 1223–1231.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    L. Silver and S. M. Wolfe, Unnecessary cesarean sections: How to cure a national epidemic, Public Citizen Health Research Group, Washington D.C. (1989).Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    R. Stafford, Cesearean section use and source of payment, American Journal of Public Health 80 (1990) 313–315.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    R. Stafford, The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section, JAMA 265 (1991) 59–63.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    R. Stafford, S.D. Sullivan and L.B. Gardner, Trends in cesarean section use in California, 1983 to 1990, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 168 (1993) 1297–1302.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    A.D. Tussing and M. Wojtowycz, The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986: Economic and Non-Economic Aspects, Medical Care 30(6) (1992) 529–540.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    A.D. Tussing and M. Wojtowycz, Health maintenance organizations, independent practice associations and cesarean section rates, Health Services Research 29(1) (1994) 75–93.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    E. Wall, ‘But doctor, I’d prefer to have a cesarean section”: When public policy conflicts with patient preference, Journal of the American Board of Family Practitioners 8(5) (1995) 414–416.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    R. Williams and W.E. Hawes, Cesarean section, fetal monitoring and perinatal mortality in California, American Journal of Public Health 69 (1979) 864–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    L. Woolbright, Why is the cesarean delivery rate so high in Alabama? An examination of risk factors, 1991–1993, Birth 23 (1996) 20–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Texas, ArlingtonArlington

Personalised recommendations