Does hospital competition improve the quality of outpatient care? - empirical evidence from a quasi-experiment in a Chinese city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although countries worldwide have launched a series of pro-competition reforms, the literature on the impacts of hospital competition has produced a complex and contradictory picture. This study examined whether hospital competition contributed to an increase in the quality of outpatient care. METHODS: The dataset comprises encounter data on 406,664 outpatients with influenza between 2015 and 2019 in China. Competition was measured using the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). Whether patients had 14-day follow-up encounter for influenza at any healthcare facility, outpatient facility, and hospital outpatient department were the three quality outcomes assessed. Binary regression models with crossed random intercepts were constructed to estimate the impacts of the HHI on the quality of outpatient care. The intensity of nighttime lights was employed as an instrumental variable to address the endogenous relationship between the HHI and the quality of outpatient care. RESULTS: We demonstrated that an increase in the degree of hospital competition was associated with improved quality of outpatient care. For each 1% increase in the degree of hospital competition, an individual's risk of having a 14-day follow-up encounter for influenza at any healthcare facility, outpatient facility, and hospital outpatient department fell by 34.9%, 18.3%, and 20.8%, respectively. The impacts of hospital competition on improving the quality of outpatient care were more substantial among females, individuals who used the Urban and Rural Residents Basic Medical Insurance to pay for their medical costs, individuals who visited accredited hospitals, and adults aged 25 to 64 years when compared with their counterparts. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that hospital competition contributed to better quality of outpatient care under a regime with a regulated ceiling price. Competition is suggested to be promoted in the outpatient care market where hospitals have control over quality and government sets a limit on the prices that hospitals may charge.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".