Advertisement

Ranking Sources of Hospital Quality Information for Orthopedic Surgery Patients: Consequences for the System of Managed Competition

  • Romy Evelien BesEmail author
  • Bernard van den Berg
Short Communication

Abstract

Background

Healthcare quality information is crucial for the system of managed competition. Within a system of managed competition, health insurers can selectively contract care providers and are allowed to channel patients towards contracted providers. The idea is that insurers have a stronger bargaining position compared to care providers when they are able to channel patients. In the Dutch system of managed competition that was implemented in 2006, channelling patients to preferred providers has not yet been very successful. Empirical knowledge of which sources of hospital quality information they find important may help us to understand how to channel patients to preferred providers.

Objectives

The objective of this survey was to measure how patients rank various sources of information when they compare hospital quality in a system of managed competition.

Methods

A written survey was conducted among clients of a large Dutch health insurance company. These clients underwent orthopedic surgery on the hip or knee no longer than 12 months ago.

Results

Two major players within a system of managed competition—health insurers and the government—were not seen as important sources of hospital quality information. In contrast, own experience and general practitioners (GPs) were seen as the most important sources of hospital quality information within the Dutch system of managed competition.

Conclusions

Health insurers should take the main finding—that GPs are the most important source of hospital quality information—into account when they contract care providers and develop strategies for channeling patients towards preferred providers. A well-functioning system of managed competition will benefit patients, as it involves incentives for care providers to increase healthcare quality and to produce at the lowest cost per unit of quality.

Keywords

Quality Information Health Insurer Discrete Choice Experiment National Ranking Prefer Provider 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to conduct this study or to prepare this manuscript. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article. We gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions of four anonymous reviewers and those of the Associate Editor Tim Wrightson. RB was responsible for the development of the survey, data collection, and data analysis. Both authors interpreted and discussed the results and their implications, and drafted and wrote the article. RB is the guarantor for the overall content.

References

  1. 1.
    Enthoven AC, Van de Ven WPMM. Going Dutch—managed-competition health insurance in the Netherlands. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(24):2421–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van den Berg B, Van Dommelen P, Stam P, Laske-Aldershof T, Buchmueller T, Schut FT. Preferences and choices for care and health insurance. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:2448–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delnoij D, Van Merode G, Paulus A, Groenewegen P. Does general practitioner gatekeeping curb health care expenditure? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000;5(1):22–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boonen LHHM, Schut FT, Koolman X. Consumer channeling by health insurers: natural experiments with preferred providers in the Dutch pharmacy market. Health Econ. 2008;17:299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sorensen AT. Insurer-hospital bargaining: negotiated discounts in post-deregulation Connecticut. J Ind Econ. 2003;51(4):469–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van de Ven WPMM, Schut FT. Managed competition in the Netherlands: still work-in-progress. Health Econ. 2009;18:253–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delnoij D, Te Asbroek G, Arah OA. Made in the USA: the import of American Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Surveys (CAHPS) into the Dutch social insurance system. Eur J Public Health. 2006;16(6):652–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van der Maat M, De Jong JD. Internet meest gebruikte informatiebron bij zoeken naar passende zorgverzekering. Utrecht: NIVEL; 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hibbard JH, Peters E, Slovic P, Finucane ML, Tusler M. Making health care report cards easier to use. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2001;27:591–604.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hibbard JH, Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane ML. Strategies for reporting health plan information to consumers: evidence from controlled studies. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(2):291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meijer A. Vreemde ogen dwingen. Maatschappelijke controle in de publieke sector via internet. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers; 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van der Star SM, Van den Berg B. Individual responsibility and health-risk behaviour: a contingent valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective. Health Policy. 2011;101:300–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Central Bureau of Statistics. Homepage. http://www.cbs.nl. Den Haag: Central Bureau of Statistics; 2009.
  14. 14.
    Dutch Health Care Authority. Richting geven aan keuzes. Kunnen verzekeraars consumenten stimuleren naar gecontrascteerde zorgaanbieders te gaan? [Giving direction to choices. Can insurers stimulate consumers to go to contracted care providers?] Utrecht: Dutch Health Care Authority; 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Groot I, Otten W, Smeets H, Marang-van de Mheen P. Is the impact of hospital performance data greater in patients who have compared hospitals? BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, Leatherman S, Brook RH. The public release of performance data. What do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;283(14):1866–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marshall MN, McLoughlin V. How do patients use information on providers? Br Med J. 2010;341:1255–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dijs-Elzinga J, Otten W, Versluijs M, Smeets H, Kievit J, Vree R, et al. Choosing a hospital for surgery: the importance of information on quality of care. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:544–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edgman-Levitan S, Cleary PD. What information do consumers want and need? Health Affairs. 1996;15(4):42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hibbard JH, Jewett JJ. Will quality report cards help consumers? Health Affairs. 1997;16(3):218–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mosca I, Schut-Welkzijn A. Choice determinants of the mobility in the Dutch health insurance market. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9:261–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Varkevisser M, Van der Geest SA. Why do patients bypass the nearest hospital? An empirical analysis for orthopaedics care and neurosurgery in the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ. 2007;8(3):287–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boonen LHHM. Consumer channeling in health care: (im)possible? Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam; 2009.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderly D, Sheperd R. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal. 1996;16(4):473–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services ResearchUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre for Health Economics, Alcuin ‘A’ BlockUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations