Waiting Time Prioritisation for Public and Private Providers: Evidence From Hip Replacement Surgery

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Health economics Pub Date : 2026-10-02 Epub Date: 2026-08-08 DOI:10.1002/hec.70140
Panos Kasteridis, Luigi Siciliani, Peter Sivey
{"title":"Waiting Time Prioritisation for Public and Private Providers: Evidence From Hip Replacement Surgery","authors":"Panos Kasteridis,&nbsp;Luigi Siciliani,&nbsp;Peter Sivey","doi":"10.1002/hec.70140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Waiting times for planned health care treatments have been increasing in England and other OECD countries. One policy to reduce the impact of waiting times on patients' health is for doctors to prioritise patients according to their health status. This study tests the extent to which publicly-funded patients in poorer health are prioritised on the list, and whether prioritisation differs between public and private providers. We use hospital administrative data in 2015–2021 on hip replacements in England. Our results provide evidence of inpatient waiting-time prioritisation (from specialist addition to list to admission for surgery) based on pre-operative health with a difference of at least 15 days between patients with lowest and highest pre-operative health. The gradient becomes steeper as waiting times increase, and much steeper during COVID-19. While outpatient waiting times (from referral to specialist visit) comprise a substantial proportion of total time waited (inpatient plus outpatient), we find limited evidence of outpatient waiting time prioritisation. Differences in inpatient waiting-time prioritisation between public and private providers are mostly due to different casemix and shorter average waiting times by private providers. We also simulate the effect of prioritisation policies that reduce inpatient waiting times for patients with low pre-operative health by 20% while simultaneously increasing it for those with high pre-operative health. We find that these policies could generate health gains of 183 QALYs in a given year. We conclude that there is scope for improving prioritisation of patients on the waiting list.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":"35 11","pages":"1744-1763"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hec.70140","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.70140","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Waiting times for planned health care treatments have been increasing in England and other OECD countries. One policy to reduce the impact of waiting times on patients' health is for doctors to prioritise patients according to their health status. This study tests the extent to which publicly-funded patients in poorer health are prioritised on the list, and whether prioritisation differs between public and private providers. We use hospital administrative data in 2015–2021 on hip replacements in England. Our results provide evidence of inpatient waiting-time prioritisation (from specialist addition to list to admission for surgery) based on pre-operative health with a difference of at least 15 days between patients with lowest and highest pre-operative health. The gradient becomes steeper as waiting times increase, and much steeper during COVID-19. While outpatient waiting times (from referral to specialist visit) comprise a substantial proportion of total time waited (inpatient plus outpatient), we find limited evidence of outpatient waiting time prioritisation. Differences in inpatient waiting-time prioritisation between public and private providers are mostly due to different casemix and shorter average waiting times by private providers. We also simulate the effect of prioritisation policies that reduce inpatient waiting times for patients with low pre-operative health by 20% while simultaneously increasing it for those with high pre-operative health. We find that these policies could generate health gains of 183 QALYs in a given year. We conclude that there is scope for improving prioritisation of patients on the waiting list.

公共和私人供应商的等待时间优先顺序:来自髋关节置换手术的证据。
在英国和其他经合组织国家,等待计划医疗保健治疗的时间一直在增加。减少等待时间对病人健康影响的一项政策是医生根据病人的健康状况对他们进行优先排序。这项研究测试了健康状况较差的公共资助患者在名单上的优先程度,以及公共和私人提供者之间的优先顺序是否不同。我们使用了英国2015-2021年髋关节置换术的医院管理数据。我们的研究结果提供了基于术前健康状况的住院等待时间优先排序(从专家加入名单到手术入院)的证据,术前健康状况最低和最高的患者之间至少有15天的差异。随着等待时间的增加,梯度变得更陡峭,在COVID-19期间更陡峭。虽然门诊等待时间(从转诊到专家访问)占总等待时间(住院加门诊)的很大一部分,但我们发现门诊等待时间优先级的证据有限。公立和私营医疗机构在住院等待时间优先排序方面的差异,主要是由于不同的病例组合和私营医疗机构的平均等待时间较短。我们还模拟了优先排序政策的效果,该政策将术前健康状况低的患者的住院等待时间减少了20%,同时增加了术前健康状况高的患者的住院等待时间。我们发现,这些政策可以在给定的一年中产生183个质量年的健康收益。我们得出的结论是,在等待名单上有改善病人优先次序的余地。
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书