医疗保健市场的定价和不完善。

J P Newhouse
{"title":"医疗保健市场的定价和不完善。","authors":"J P Newhouse","doi":"10.1007/978-94-011-2392-1_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To summarize: Some economic literature treats price determination in the medical marketplace as if it were similar to that of a standard marketplace. It seems more realistic to treat it as an outcome of one or more administered price systems. Such systems, may be formula-based, as is common in the United States (for example, the Prospective Payment System), or not (for example, a negotiated budget). In either case, however, the actual price is likely to deviate from the ideal price in part for lack of information. Plausible deviations can explain some observed phenomena. The inability to attain the ideal price, together with heterogeneity of patients, may also explain why in practice we observe several different bases of provider payment; for example, fee-for-service, capitation, and salary. All of these may be attempts to arrive at second best prices. Ignoring any welfare loss from raising revenue and assuming those with the largest marginal social valuation for the service are served first, errors in price setting lead to a welfare loss that is approximately proportional to the square of the deviation from the ideal price. If price setting is unbiased (i.e., errors have a mean of zero), the welfare loss is approximately proportional to the variance of the error in setting price. If price setting is biased, welfare loss is approximately proportional to the variance plus the square of the bias. Taking account of welfare loss from raising revenue may make monopsonistic pricing optimal. If one uses multiple bases of payment, for example both fee-for-service and capitation, one can average the errors that arise in each basis. This creates a gain from using a mixed system, in addition to those gains cited by other analysts, who focus on the method of reimbursement assuming what, in the present context, could be termed error-free price effects. The gains from averaging errors would appear available in any administered price system and are compatible with a wide variety of models of provider behavior.</p>","PeriodicalId":79866,"journal":{"name":"Developments in health economics and public policy","volume":"1 ","pages":"3-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pricing and imperfections in the medical care marketplace.\",\"authors\":\"J P Newhouse\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/978-94-011-2392-1_1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To summarize: Some economic literature treats price determination in the medical marketplace as if it were similar to that of a standard marketplace. It seems more realistic to treat it as an outcome of one or more administered price systems. Such systems, may be formula-based, as is common in the United States (for example, the Prospective Payment System), or not (for example, a negotiated budget). In either case, however, the actual price is likely to deviate from the ideal price in part for lack of information. Plausible deviations can explain some observed phenomena. The inability to attain the ideal price, together with heterogeneity of patients, may also explain why in practice we observe several different bases of provider payment; for example, fee-for-service, capitation, and salary. All of these may be attempts to arrive at second best prices. Ignoring any welfare loss from raising revenue and assuming those with the largest marginal social valuation for the service are served first, errors in price setting lead to a welfare loss that is approximately proportional to the square of the deviation from the ideal price. If price setting is unbiased (i.e., errors have a mean of zero), the welfare loss is approximately proportional to the variance of the error in setting price. If price setting is biased, welfare loss is approximately proportional to the variance plus the square of the bias. Taking account of welfare loss from raising revenue may make monopsonistic pricing optimal. If one uses multiple bases of payment, for example both fee-for-service and capitation, one can average the errors that arise in each basis. This creates a gain from using a mixed system, in addition to those gains cited by other analysts, who focus on the method of reimbursement assuming what, in the present context, could be termed error-free price effects. The gains from averaging errors would appear available in any administered price system and are compatible with a wide variety of models of provider behavior.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developments in health economics and public policy\",\"volume\":\"1 \",\"pages\":\"3-22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1992-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developments in health economics and public policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2392-1_1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developments in health economics and public policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2392-1_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

总而言之:一些经济学文献将医疗市场中的价格决定视为类似于标准市场。将其视为一个或多个价格管理体系的结果似乎更为现实。这些系统可能是基于公式的,就像美国常见的那样(例如,预期支付系统),也可能不是(例如,协商预算)。然而,在任何一种情况下,由于缺乏信息,实际价格都可能偏离理想价格。貌似合理的偏差可以解释一些观察到的现象。无法获得理想的价格,再加上患者的异质性,也可以解释为什么在实践中我们观察到几种不同的提供者支付基础;例如,服务收费、人头和工资。所有这些都可能是为了达到次优价格。忽略增加收入带来的任何福利损失,并假设服务的边际社会价值最大的人首先得到服务,价格设定的错误导致的福利损失大约与偏离理想价格的平方成正比。如果价格设定是无偏的(即,误差的平均值为零),福利损失大约与设定价格的误差方差成正比。如果价格设定是有偏差的,福利损失大约与方差加上偏差的平方成正比。考虑到增加收入带来的福利损失,垄断定价可能是最优的。如果使用多种支付基础,例如按服务收费和按人头计费,则可以平均每种基础中出现的错误。除了其他分析人士提到的那些好处之外,使用混合制度还会带来好处,这些分析人士着重于假定在目前情况下可以称为没有错误的价格影响的偿还方法。从平均误差中获得的收益在任何价格管理系统中都是可用的,并且与各种各样的提供者行为模型兼容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pricing and imperfections in the medical care marketplace.

To summarize: Some economic literature treats price determination in the medical marketplace as if it were similar to that of a standard marketplace. It seems more realistic to treat it as an outcome of one or more administered price systems. Such systems, may be formula-based, as is common in the United States (for example, the Prospective Payment System), or not (for example, a negotiated budget). In either case, however, the actual price is likely to deviate from the ideal price in part for lack of information. Plausible deviations can explain some observed phenomena. The inability to attain the ideal price, together with heterogeneity of patients, may also explain why in practice we observe several different bases of provider payment; for example, fee-for-service, capitation, and salary. All of these may be attempts to arrive at second best prices. Ignoring any welfare loss from raising revenue and assuming those with the largest marginal social valuation for the service are served first, errors in price setting lead to a welfare loss that is approximately proportional to the square of the deviation from the ideal price. If price setting is unbiased (i.e., errors have a mean of zero), the welfare loss is approximately proportional to the variance of the error in setting price. If price setting is biased, welfare loss is approximately proportional to the variance plus the square of the bias. Taking account of welfare loss from raising revenue may make monopsonistic pricing optimal. If one uses multiple bases of payment, for example both fee-for-service and capitation, one can average the errors that arise in each basis. This creates a gain from using a mixed system, in addition to those gains cited by other analysts, who focus on the method of reimbursement assuming what, in the present context, could be termed error-free price effects. The gains from averaging errors would appear available in any administered price system and are compatible with a wide variety of models of provider behavior.

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
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信