Abstract
We investigate a health care market with uncertainty in a mixed duopoly, where a partially privatized public hospital competes against a private hospital in terms of quality choice. We use a simple Hotelling-type spatial competition model by incorporating mean–variance analysis and the framework of partial privatization. We show how the variance in the quality perceived by patients affects the true quality of medical care provided by hospitals. In addition, we show that a case exists in which the quality of the partially privatized hospital becomes higher than that of the private hospital when the patient’s preference for quality is relatively high.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For an excellent survey of the Hotelling-type spatial competition model, see Gabszewicz and Thisse [10].
The advantage of using the Hotelling-type spatial competition model is that we can analyze location (or preference) as horizontal product differentiation. Further, by incorporating the quality of medical care into the model, we can also examine quality as vertical product differentiation.
In addition to health care markets, competition between public and private firms also exists in other industries, such as education, telecommunications, electricity, railways, airlines, TV and radio broadcasting, banking, medical insurance, and life insurance. Therefore, our study may also be applicable to the analysis of other areas.
This (partial) privatization is one of the measures introduced to improve the efficiency of the public sector in developed countries since the 1980s. See Bös [4].
Chalkley and Malcomson [7], Levaggi [12], and Levaggi and Montefiori [13, 14] define the quality of service provided by hospitals as a multidimensional vector that includes (various) aspects of medical and non-medical quality. Levaggi and Montefiori [13, 14] describe medical and non-medical quality as follows. Medical quality (health-related services) includes aspects such as prevention, treatment, aftercare, and nursing. Non-medical quality (hotel services) includes the number of beds per room, nurses per ward, accommodation, comfort, kindness toward patients, provision of information, catering services, and so forth. However, in this paper, we use the conventional notion of quality in accordance with the existing literature.
Montefiori [22] assumed the Diagnosis-Related Groups/Prospective Payment System (DRG/PPS) to be implemented as a tax-financed health care system, and that patients were able to avail themselves of the hospital care service at zero cost. In our model, however, we assume that all patients are insured and are subject to a copayment system. This assumption does not affect our analysis and implies no loss of generality.
Since location choice is not a factor in our model, we use the Hotelling-type spatial competition model with linear transportation costs. For the equilibrium of location choice under Hotelling’s location model with linear transportation costs, see Economides [8] for a private duopoly and Sanjo [26] for a mixed duopoly. These studies investigated a three-stage game, i.e., a location-then-quality choice and a subsequent price choice.
See also Matsumura [20] for the partial privatization of a public firm. His study investigates a mixed market by formulating the model in detail.
Since the average quality, \( \bar{q}_{i} , \) is a value rather than a variable, we cannot directly obtain the first-order conditions for both hospitals by maximizing the objective functions with respect to q i . Therefore, based on theoretical reasoning, we assume \( \bar{q}_{i} = q_{i} \) in order to obtain reasonable solutions.
See Eq. 6.
See Eq. 1.
For a related work, see Lu and Poddar [16]. This study examines the capacity choice of firms under demand uncertainty in a mixed duopoly market.
See also Levaggi and Montefiori [14].
References
Arrow, K.J.: Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am. Econ. Rev. 53, 941–973 (1963)
Barros, P.P., Martinez-Giralt, X.: Public and private provision of health care. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 11, 109–133 (2002)
Bester, H.: Quality uncertainty mitigates product differentiation. Rand J. Econ. 29, 828–844 (1998)
Bös, D.: Privatization: A Theoretical Treatment. Clarendon, Oxford (1991)
Brekke, K.R., Nuscheler, R., Straume, O.R.: Quality and location choices under price regulation. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 15, 207–227 (2006)
Calem, P.S., Rizzo, J.A.: Competition and specialization in the hospital industry: an application of Hotelling’s location model. South. Econ. J. 61, 1182–1198 (1995)
Chalkley, M., Malcomson, M.: Contracting for health services with unmonitored quality. Econ. J. 108, 1093–1110 (1998)
Economides, N.: Quality variations and maximal variety differentiation. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 19, 21–29 (1989)
Economides, N.: Quality variations in the circular model of variety-differentiated products. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 23, 235–257 (1993)
Gabszewicz, J.J., Thisse, J.-F.: Location. In: Aumann, R.J., Hart, S. (eds.) Handbook of Game Theory, vol. 1, pp. 281–304. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1992)
Gravelle, H., Masiero, G.: Quality incentives in a regulated market with imperfect information and switching costs: capitation in general practice. J. Health Econ. 19, 1067–1088 (2000)
Levaggi, R.: Hospital health care: pricing and quality control in a spatial model with asymmetry of information. Int. J. Health Care Finance Econ. 5, 327–349 (2005)
Levaggi, R., Montefiori, M.: Horizontal and vertical cream skimming in the health care market. DISEFIN Working Paper (2003). http://ssrn.com/abstract=545583
Levaggi, R., Montefiori, M.: It takes three to tango: soft budget constraint and cream skimming in the hospital care market (2005). DISEFIN Working Paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=756628
Lu, Y., Poddar, S.: Mixed oligopoly and the choice of capacity. Res. Econ. 59, 365–374 (2005)
Lu, Y., Poddar, S.: The choice of capacity in mixed duopoly under demand uncertainty. Manch. Sch. 74, 266–272 (2006)
Lyon, T.P.: Quality competition, insurance, and consumer choice in health care markets. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 8, 545–580 (1999)
Ma, C.A.: Public rationing and private cost incentives. J. Public Econ. 88, 333–352 (2003)
Ma, C.A., Burgess Jr, J.F.: Quality competition, welfare, and regulation. J. Econ. 58, 153–173 (1993)
Matsumura, T.: Partial privatization in mixed duopoly. J. Public Econ. 70, 473–483 (1998)
Matsumura, T., Matsushima, N.: Endogenous cost differentials between public and private enterprises: a mixed duopoly approach. Economica 71, 671–688 (2004)
Montefiori, M.: Spatial competition for quality in the market for hospital care. Eur. J. Health Econ. 6, 131–135 (2005)
Montefiori, M.: Information vs. advertising in the market for hospital care. Int. J. Health Care Finance Econ. 8, 145–162 (2008)
Nishimori, A., Ogawa, H.: Do firms always choose excess capacity? Econ. Bull. 12(2), 1–7 (2004)
Nuscheler, R.: Physician reimbursement, time consistency, and the quality of care. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 159, 302–322 (2003)
Sanjo, Y.: Hotelling’s location model with quality choice in mixed duopoly. Econ. Bull. 18(2), 1–11 (2007)
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Hikaru Ogawa, Hiroshi Aiura, and the anonymous referee of this journal for helpful comments and constructive suggestions. The author was supported by grants from the Gushinkai foundation. All errors remain mine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Substituting \( \sigma_{{q_{0} }}^{2} - \sigma_{{q_{1} }}^{2} = 0 \) into Eqs. 9–12, we can reformulate q 0, q 1, x and the difference between qualities as:
Using Eq. 19, we obtain Eq. 17 under θ ∈ [0, 1) and Eq. 18 under θ = 1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sanjo, Y. Quality choice in a health care market: a mixed duopoly approach. Eur J Health Econ 10, 207–215 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-008-0120-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-008-0120-7