医生的横向和纵向整合:两个尾巴的故事。

Lawton Robert Burns, Jeff C Goldsmith, Aditi Sen
{"title":"医生的横向和纵向整合:两个尾巴的故事。","authors":"Lawton Robert Burns,&nbsp;Jeff C Goldsmith,&nbsp;Aditi Sen","doi":"10.1108/s1474-8231(2013)0000015009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Researchers recommend a reorganization of the medical profession into larger groups with a multispecialty mix. We analyze whether there is evidence for the superiority of these models and if this organizational transformation is underway. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY APPROACH: We summarize the evidence on scale and scope economies in physician group practice, and then review the trends in physician group size and specialty mix to conduct survivorship tests of the most efficient models.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The distribution of physician groups exhibits two interesting tails. In the lower tail, a large percentage of physicians continue to practice in small, physician-owned practices. In the upper tail, there is a small but rapidly growing percentage of large groups that have been organized primarily by non-physician owners.</p><p><strong>Research limitations: </strong>While our analysis includes no original data, it does collate all known surveys of physician practice characteristics and group practice formation to provide a consistent picture of physician organization.</p><p><strong>Research implications: </strong>Our review suggests that scale and scope economies in physician practice are limited. This may explain why most physicians have retained their small practices.</p><p><strong>Practical implications: </strong>Larger, multispecialty groups have been primarily organized by non-physician owners in vertically integrated arrangements. There is little evidence supporting the efficiencies of such models and some concern they may pose anticompetitive threats.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>This is the first comprehensive review of the scale and scope economies of physician practice in nearly two decades. The research results do not appear to have changed much; nor has much changed in physician practice organization.</p>","PeriodicalId":35465,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Care Management","volume":"15 ","pages":"39-117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/s1474-8231(2013)0000015009","citationCount":"102","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Horizontal and vertical integration of physicians: a tale of two tails.\",\"authors\":\"Lawton Robert Burns,&nbsp;Jeff C Goldsmith,&nbsp;Aditi Sen\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/s1474-8231(2013)0000015009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Researchers recommend a reorganization of the medical profession into larger groups with a multispecialty mix. We analyze whether there is evidence for the superiority of these models and if this organizational transformation is underway. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY APPROACH: We summarize the evidence on scale and scope economies in physician group practice, and then review the trends in physician group size and specialty mix to conduct survivorship tests of the most efficient models.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The distribution of physician groups exhibits two interesting tails. In the lower tail, a large percentage of physicians continue to practice in small, physician-owned practices. In the upper tail, there is a small but rapidly growing percentage of large groups that have been organized primarily by non-physician owners.</p><p><strong>Research limitations: </strong>While our analysis includes no original data, it does collate all known surveys of physician practice characteristics and group practice formation to provide a consistent picture of physician organization.</p><p><strong>Research implications: </strong>Our review suggests that scale and scope economies in physician practice are limited. This may explain why most physicians have retained their small practices.</p><p><strong>Practical implications: </strong>Larger, multispecialty groups have been primarily organized by non-physician owners in vertically integrated arrangements. There is little evidence supporting the efficiencies of such models and some concern they may pose anticompetitive threats.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>This is the first comprehensive review of the scale and scope economies of physician practice in nearly two decades. The research results do not appear to have changed much; nor has much changed in physician practice organization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Health Care Management\",\"volume\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"39-117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/s1474-8231(2013)0000015009\",\"citationCount\":\"102\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Health Care Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/s1474-8231(2013)0000015009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Care Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/s1474-8231(2013)0000015009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 102

摘要

目的:研究人员建议将医学专业重组为更大的多专业组合。我们分析是否有证据证明这些模型的优越性,以及这种组织转型是否正在进行中。设计/方法学方法:我们总结了医生群体实践中规模经济和范围经济的证据,然后回顾医生群体规模和专业组合的趋势,对最有效的模型进行生存检验。结果:医师群体的分布呈现出两条有趣的尾巴。在较低的尾部,很大比例的医生继续在医生拥有的小型诊所执业。在上尾,主要由非医生业主组织的大型集团的比例虽小,但增长迅速。研究局限性:虽然我们的分析不包括原始数据,但它确实整理了所有已知的医生实践特征和小组实践形成的调查,以提供医生组织的一致图像。研究意义:我们的综述表明,医师实践中的规模经济和范围经济是有限的。这也许可以解释为什么大多数医生保留了他们的小诊所。实际意义:更大的、多专业的群体已经主要由非医生业主在垂直整合安排组织。几乎没有证据支持这种模式的效率,一些人担心它们可能构成反竞争的威胁。原创性/价值:这是近二十年来首次对医师实践的规模和范围经济进行全面回顾。研究结果似乎没有太大变化;医生执业组织也没有太大变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Horizontal and vertical integration of physicians: a tale of two tails.

Purpose: Researchers recommend a reorganization of the medical profession into larger groups with a multispecialty mix. We analyze whether there is evidence for the superiority of these models and if this organizational transformation is underway. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY APPROACH: We summarize the evidence on scale and scope economies in physician group practice, and then review the trends in physician group size and specialty mix to conduct survivorship tests of the most efficient models.

Findings: The distribution of physician groups exhibits two interesting tails. In the lower tail, a large percentage of physicians continue to practice in small, physician-owned practices. In the upper tail, there is a small but rapidly growing percentage of large groups that have been organized primarily by non-physician owners.

Research limitations: While our analysis includes no original data, it does collate all known surveys of physician practice characteristics and group practice formation to provide a consistent picture of physician organization.

Research implications: Our review suggests that scale and scope economies in physician practice are limited. This may explain why most physicians have retained their small practices.

Practical implications: Larger, multispecialty groups have been primarily organized by non-physician owners in vertically integrated arrangements. There is little evidence supporting the efficiencies of such models and some concern they may pose anticompetitive threats.

Originality/value: This is the first comprehensive review of the scale and scope economies of physician practice in nearly two decades. The research results do not appear to have changed much; nor has much changed in physician practice organization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Health Care Management
Advances in Health Care Management Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Back to the Future: What Healthcare Organizations Need to Thrive in the Face of Persistent Environmental Uncertainty. Hospital Finances During the First Two Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From Washington State Hospitals. Examining Knowledge Management and the Culture Change Movement in Long-Term Care: A Study of High-Medicaid-Census Nursing Homes. Innovation Diffusion Across 13 Specialties and Associated Clinician Characteristics. Measure Twice, Change Once: Using Simulation to Support Change Management in Rural Healthcare Delivery.
×
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