在美国众议院能源和商业委员会监督和调查小组委员会面前发表的“审查医疗保健合并的影响”声明

M. Gaynor
{"title":"在美国众议院能源和商业委员会监督和调查小组委员会面前发表的“审查医疗保健合并的影响”声明","authors":"M. Gaynor","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3287848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"• The U.S. health care system is based on markets. The system will work only as well as the markets that underpin it. \n \n• These markets do not function as well as they could, or should. Prices are high and rising, there are incomprehensible and egregious pricing practices, quality is sub-optimal, and the sector is sluggish and unresponsive, in contrast to the innovation and dynamism which characterize much of the rest of our economy. \n \n• Lack of competition has a lot to do with these problems. \n \n• There has been a great deal of consolidation in health care. There have been 1,519 hospital mergers in the past twenty years, with 680 since 2010. The result is that many local areas are now dominated by one large, powerful health system, e.g., Boston (Partners), Pittsburgh (UPMC), and San Francisco (Sutter). \n \n• Insurance markets are also highly consolidated. The two largest insurers have 70 percent of the market or more in one-half of all local insurance markets. \n \n• Physician services markets have also become increasingly more concentrated. Two-thirds of specialist physician markets are highly concentrated, and 29 percent for primary care physicians. There have been a very large number of acquisitions of physician practices by hospitals, so much so that 33 percent of all physicians, and 44 percent of primary physicians are now employed by hospitals. \n \n• Extensive research evidence shows that consolidation between close competitors leads to substantial price increases for hospitals, insurers, and physicians, without offsetting gains in improved quality or enhanced efficiency. Further, recent evidence shows that mergers between hospitals not in the same geographic area can also lead to increases in price. Just as seriously, if not more, evidence shows that patient quality of care suffers from lack of competition. \n \n• This is causing serious harm to patients and to the health care system as a whole. \n \n• Policies are needed to support and promote competition in health care markets. This includes policies to strengthen choice and competition, and ending distortions that unintentionally incentivize consolidation. \n \n• These include: \n \n– Focus and strengthen antitrust enforcement. \n \n– End policies that unintentionally incentivize consolidation. \n \n– End policies that hamper new competitors and impede competition. \n \n– Promote transparency, so employers, policymakers, and consumers have access to information about health care costs and quality.","PeriodicalId":11036,"journal":{"name":"Demand & Supply in Health Economics eJournal","volume":"73 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"35","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Examining the Impact of Health Care Consolidation' Statement before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives\",\"authors\":\"M. Gaynor\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3287848\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"• The U.S. health care system is based on markets. The system will work only as well as the markets that underpin it. \\n \\n• These markets do not function as well as they could, or should. Prices are high and rising, there are incomprehensible and egregious pricing practices, quality is sub-optimal, and the sector is sluggish and unresponsive, in contrast to the innovation and dynamism which characterize much of the rest of our economy. \\n \\n• Lack of competition has a lot to do with these problems. \\n \\n• There has been a great deal of consolidation in health care. There have been 1,519 hospital mergers in the past twenty years, with 680 since 2010. The result is that many local areas are now dominated by one large, powerful health system, e.g., Boston (Partners), Pittsburgh (UPMC), and San Francisco (Sutter). \\n \\n• Insurance markets are also highly consolidated. The two largest insurers have 70 percent of the market or more in one-half of all local insurance markets. \\n \\n• Physician services markets have also become increasingly more concentrated. Two-thirds of specialist physician markets are highly concentrated, and 29 percent for primary care physicians. There have been a very large number of acquisitions of physician practices by hospitals, so much so that 33 percent of all physicians, and 44 percent of primary physicians are now employed by hospitals. \\n \\n• Extensive research evidence shows that consolidation between close competitors leads to substantial price increases for hospitals, insurers, and physicians, without offsetting gains in improved quality or enhanced efficiency. Further, recent evidence shows that mergers between hospitals not in the same geographic area can also lead to increases in price. Just as seriously, if not more, evidence shows that patient quality of care suffers from lack of competition. \\n \\n• This is causing serious harm to patients and to the health care system as a whole. \\n \\n• Policies are needed to support and promote competition in health care markets. This includes policies to strengthen choice and competition, and ending distortions that unintentionally incentivize consolidation. \\n \\n• These include: \\n \\n– Focus and strengthen antitrust enforcement. \\n \\n– End policies that unintentionally incentivize consolidation. \\n \\n– End policies that hamper new competitors and impede competition. \\n \\n– Promote transparency, so employers, policymakers, and consumers have access to information about health care costs and quality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Demand & Supply in Health Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"73 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"35\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Demand & Supply in Health Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3287848\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Demand & Supply in Health Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3287848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

摘要

•美国的医疗保健体系以市场为基础。这个体系只有在支撑它的市场中才能发挥作用。•这些市场没有发挥应有的作用。价格居高不下,而且还在上涨,定价做法令人难以理解,令人震惊,质量不够理想,与创新和活力形成鲜明对比的是,这个行业反应迟钝,反应迟钝,而创新和活力是我们经济其他领域的特征。缺乏竞争与这些问题有很大关系。•在卫生保健领域进行了大量整合。在过去的20年里,有1519家医院合并,自2010年以来有680家。其结果是,许多地方现在由一个强大的大型卫生系统主导,例如波士顿(Partners)、匹兹堡(UPMC)和旧金山(Sutter)。•保险市场也高度整合。这两家最大的保险公司在一半的本地保险市场中占有70%或更多的市场份额。•医生服务市场也变得越来越集中。三分之二的专科医生市场高度集中,29%的初级保健医生市场高度集中。医院收购了大量的医生,以至于33%的医生和44%的初级医生都受雇于医院。•广泛的研究证据表明,密切竞争对手之间的合并导致医院、保险公司和医生的价格大幅上涨,但不会抵消质量改善或效率提高带来的收益。此外,最近的证据表明,不在同一地理区域的医院之间的合并也可能导致价格上涨。同样严重(如果不是更严重的话)的是,证据表明,缺乏竞争影响了患者的护理质量。•这对患者和整个医疗保健系统造成了严重伤害。•需要制定政策来支持和促进保健市场的竞争。这包括加强选择和竞争的政策,以及结束无意中刺激整合的扭曲。•这些措施包括:-关注并加强反垄断执法。-终止无意中鼓励合并的政策。-终止阻碍新竞争者和阻碍竞争的政策。-提高透明度,使雇主、政策制定者和消费者能够获得有关医疗保健成本和质量的信息。
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
'Examining the Impact of Health Care Consolidation' Statement before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives
• The U.S. health care system is based on markets. The system will work only as well as the markets that underpin it. • These markets do not function as well as they could, or should. Prices are high and rising, there are incomprehensible and egregious pricing practices, quality is sub-optimal, and the sector is sluggish and unresponsive, in contrast to the innovation and dynamism which characterize much of the rest of our economy. • Lack of competition has a lot to do with these problems. • There has been a great deal of consolidation in health care. There have been 1,519 hospital mergers in the past twenty years, with 680 since 2010. The result is that many local areas are now dominated by one large, powerful health system, e.g., Boston (Partners), Pittsburgh (UPMC), and San Francisco (Sutter). • Insurance markets are also highly consolidated. The two largest insurers have 70 percent of the market or more in one-half of all local insurance markets. • Physician services markets have also become increasingly more concentrated. Two-thirds of specialist physician markets are highly concentrated, and 29 percent for primary care physicians. There have been a very large number of acquisitions of physician practices by hospitals, so much so that 33 percent of all physicians, and 44 percent of primary physicians are now employed by hospitals. • Extensive research evidence shows that consolidation between close competitors leads to substantial price increases for hospitals, insurers, and physicians, without offsetting gains in improved quality or enhanced efficiency. Further, recent evidence shows that mergers between hospitals not in the same geographic area can also lead to increases in price. Just as seriously, if not more, evidence shows that patient quality of care suffers from lack of competition. • This is causing serious harm to patients and to the health care system as a whole. • Policies are needed to support and promote competition in health care markets. This includes policies to strengthen choice and competition, and ending distortions that unintentionally incentivize consolidation. • These include: – Focus and strengthen antitrust enforcement. – End policies that unintentionally incentivize consolidation. – End policies that hamper new competitors and impede competition. – Promote transparency, so employers, policymakers, and consumers have access to information about health care costs and quality.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Procurement Institutions and Essential Drug Supply in Low and Middle-Income Countries Watching the Grass Grow: Does Recreational Cannabis Legalization Affect Labor Outcomes? Decomposition of Clinical Disparities with Machine Learning Economic Consequences of Hospital Closures The Price-Leverage Covariation as a Measure of the Response of the Leverage Effect To Price and Volatility Changes
×
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