Pricing hospital care: Global budgets and marginal pricing strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) is adding financial incentives to increase the volume of surgeries provided by hospitals using a marginal pricing approach. The objective of this study is to calculate marginal costs of surgeries based on assumptions regarding hospitals' availability of labor and equipment. DATA: This study is based on observational clinical, administrative and financial data generated by hospitals. Hospital inpatient and outpatient discharge summaries from the province are linked with detailed activity-based costing information, stratified by assigned case mix categorizations. STUDY DESIGN: To reflect a range of operating constraints governing hospitals' ability to increase their volume of surgeries, a number of scenarios are proposed. Under these scenarios, estimated marginal costs are calculated and compared to prices being offered as incentives to hospitals. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Existing data can be used to support alternative strategies for pricing hospital care. Prices for inpatient surgeries do not generate positive margins under a range of operating scenarios. Hip and knee surgeries generate surpluses for hospitals even under the most costly labor conditions and are expected to generate additional volume. CONCLUSIONS: In health systems that wish to fine-tune financial incentives, setting prices that create incentives for additional volume should reflect knowledge of hospitals' underlying cost structures. Possible implications of mis-pricing include no response to the incentives or uneven increases in supply.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".