Do health care quality improvement policies work for all? Distributional effects by baseline quality in South Africa

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS Health economics Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1002/hec.4899
Finn McGuire, Peter C. Smith, Nicholas Stacey, Ijeoma Edoka, Noemi Kreif
{"title":"Do health care quality improvement policies work for all? Distributional effects by baseline quality in South Africa","authors":"Finn McGuire,&nbsp;Peter C. Smith,&nbsp;Nicholas Stacey,&nbsp;Ijeoma Edoka,&nbsp;Noemi Kreif","doi":"10.1002/hec.4899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Health care quality improvement (QI) initiatives are being implemented by a number of low- and middle-income countries. However, there is concern that these policies may not reduce, or may even worsen, inequities in access to high-quality care. Few studies have examined the distributional impact of QI programmes. We study the Ideal Clinic Realization and Maintenance program implemented in health facilities in South Africa, assessing whether the effects of the program are sensitive to previous quality performance. Implementing difference-in-difference-in-difference and changes-in-changes approaches we estimate the effect of the program on quality across the distribution of past facility quality performance. We find that the largest gains are realized by facilities with higher baseline quality, meaning this policy may have led to a worsening of pre-existing inequity in health care quality. Our study highlights that the full consequences of QI programmes cannot be gauged solely from examination of the mean impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":"34 1","pages":"175-199"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11631827/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.4899","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health care quality improvement (QI) initiatives are being implemented by a number of low- and middle-income countries. However, there is concern that these policies may not reduce, or may even worsen, inequities in access to high-quality care. Few studies have examined the distributional impact of QI programmes. We study the Ideal Clinic Realization and Maintenance program implemented in health facilities in South Africa, assessing whether the effects of the program are sensitive to previous quality performance. Implementing difference-in-difference-in-difference and changes-in-changes approaches we estimate the effect of the program on quality across the distribution of past facility quality performance. We find that the largest gains are realized by facilities with higher baseline quality, meaning this policy may have led to a worsening of pre-existing inequity in health care quality. Our study highlights that the full consequences of QI programmes cannot be gauged solely from examination of the mean impact.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
提高医疗质量的政策对所有人都有效吗?南非基线质量的分布效应。
一些中低收入国家正在实施提高医疗质量(QI)的举措。然而,令人担忧的是,这些政策可能不会减少,甚至可能加剧在获得高质量医疗服务方面的不平等。很少有研究探讨过质量改进计划对分配的影响。我们研究了在南非医疗机构实施的理想诊所实现与维护计划,评估了该计划的效果是否对之前的质量表现敏感。我们采用 "差异中的差异 "和 "变化中的变化 "两种方法,估算了该计划对过去医疗机构质量绩效分布的影响。我们发现,基线质量较高的医疗机构获得的收益最大,这意味着该政策可能导致了医疗质量不平等的恶化。我们的研究强调,不能仅从平均影响的角度来衡量质量改进计划的全部后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health economics
Health economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems. Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses. Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.
期刊最新文献
The Dynamic and Heterogeneous Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates in the USA. Public Health Insurance and Healthcare Utilisation Decisions of Young Adults. Issue Information Diagnosis Related Payment for Inpatient Mental Health Care: Hospital Selection and Effects on Length of Stay. Aggregation Bias and Socioeconomic Gradients in Waiting Time for Hospital Admissions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1