精神科需要证明书及住院精神科服务证明书

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
James Bailey, Eleanor Lewin
{"title":"精神科需要证明书及住院精神科服务证明书","authors":"James Bailey,&nbsp;Eleanor Lewin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Certificate of need (CON) laws require would-be healthcare providers to obtain the permission of a state board before opening or expanding. 35 US states operate some type of CON program, though they vary widely in the specific services or equipment they target, with 25 states requiring CON for psychiatric services.</p><p><strong>Aims of the study: </strong>We provide the first empirical estimates on how CON affects the provision of psychiatric services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We use Ordinary Least Squares regression to analyze 2010-2016 data on psychiatric CON from the American Health Planning Association together with data on psychiatric facilities and services from the National Mental Health Services Survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We find that CON laws targeting psychiatric services are associated with a statistically significant 0.527 fewer psychiatric hospitals per million residents (20% fewer) and 2.19 fewer inpatient psychiatric clients per ten thousand residents (56% fewer). Psychiatric CON is also associated with psychiatric hospitals being 5.35 percentage points less likely to accept Medicare. Our estimates for CON's effect on the number of inpatient psychiatric beds per ten thousand residents and the likelihood of psychiatric hospitals accepting Medicaid, private insurance, or charity care (no charge) are negative but not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>CON laws may substantially reduce access to psychiatric care. A limitation of our study is that there is almost no variation in which states have psychiatric-related CON laws during the time period of our data (New Hampshire is the only state to change its psychiatric services CON requirement in this period, repealing its CON program entirely in 2016). This precludes the use of preferred econometric techniques such as difference-in-difference.</p><p><strong>Implications for health policies: </strong>Our results indicate that CON laws may reduce access to inpatient psychiatric care. State policymakers should consider whether CON repeal could be a simple way of enhancing access to psychiatric care.</p><p><strong>Implications for further research: </strong>While hundreds of articles have examined the effects of CON laws, we believe ours is the first to provide empirical estimates of their effects on mental health care specifically. We hope it is not the last.</p>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":"24 4","pages":"117-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Certificate of Need and Inpatient Psychiatric Services.\",\"authors\":\"James Bailey,&nbsp;Eleanor Lewin\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Certificate of need (CON) laws require would-be healthcare providers to obtain the permission of a state board before opening or expanding. 35 US states operate some type of CON program, though they vary widely in the specific services or equipment they target, with 25 states requiring CON for psychiatric services.</p><p><strong>Aims of the study: </strong>We provide the first empirical estimates on how CON affects the provision of psychiatric services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We use Ordinary Least Squares regression to analyze 2010-2016 data on psychiatric CON from the American Health Planning Association together with data on psychiatric facilities and services from the National Mental Health Services Survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We find that CON laws targeting psychiatric services are associated with a statistically significant 0.527 fewer psychiatric hospitals per million residents (20% fewer) and 2.19 fewer inpatient psychiatric clients per ten thousand residents (56% fewer). Psychiatric CON is also associated with psychiatric hospitals being 5.35 percentage points less likely to accept Medicare. Our estimates for CON's effect on the number of inpatient psychiatric beds per ten thousand residents and the likelihood of psychiatric hospitals accepting Medicaid, private insurance, or charity care (no charge) are negative but not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>CON laws may substantially reduce access to psychiatric care. A limitation of our study is that there is almost no variation in which states have psychiatric-related CON laws during the time period of our data (New Hampshire is the only state to change its psychiatric services CON requirement in this period, repealing its CON program entirely in 2016). This precludes the use of preferred econometric techniques such as difference-in-difference.</p><p><strong>Implications for health policies: </strong>Our results indicate that CON laws may reduce access to inpatient psychiatric care. State policymakers should consider whether CON repeal could be a simple way of enhancing access to psychiatric care.</p><p><strong>Implications for further research: </strong>While hundreds of articles have examined the effects of CON laws, we believe ours is the first to provide empirical estimates of their effects on mental health care specifically. We hope it is not the last.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics\",\"volume\":\"24 4\",\"pages\":\"117-124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:需求证书(CON)法律要求潜在的医疗保健提供者在开业或扩大之前获得州委员会的许可。美国有35个州实施了某种形式的CON项目,尽管它们针对的具体服务或设备差异很大,其中25个州要求精神病学服务采用CON。研究目的:我们提供了第一个关于CON如何影响精神病学服务提供的实证估计。方法:采用普通最小二乘回归分析2010-2016年美国健康规划协会的精神病学CON数据以及国家精神卫生服务调查的精神病学设施和服务数据。结果:我们发现,针对精神科服务的CON法律与每百万居民减少0.527家精神科医院(减少20%)和每万居民减少2.19名住院精神科病人(减少56%)相关,这在统计学上具有显著意义。精神病CON也与精神病医院接受医疗保险的可能性低5.35个百分点有关。我们估计CON对每万居民精神病住院床位数量的影响,以及精神病医院接受医疗补助、私人保险或慈善护理(免费)的可能性是负的,但在统计上不显著。讨论:法律可能会大大减少获得精神科治疗的机会。我们研究的一个局限性是,在我们的数据期间,各州的精神病学相关CON法律几乎没有变化(新罕布什尔州是唯一一个在此期间改变其精神病学服务CON要求的州,在2016年完全废除了其CON计划)。这就排除了使用诸如差中差等首选计量经济学技术的可能性。对卫生政策的影响:我们的研究结果表明,CON法律可能会减少住院精神病治疗的机会。各州的政策制定者应该考虑,废除《CON》是否能成为一种提高精神病治疗机会的简单方法。对进一步研究的启示:虽然有数百篇文章研究了CON laws的影响,但我们认为我们的文章是第一个对CON laws对精神卫生保健的具体影响提供实证估计的文章。我们希望这不是最后一次。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Certificate of Need and Inpatient Psychiatric Services.

Background: Certificate of need (CON) laws require would-be healthcare providers to obtain the permission of a state board before opening or expanding. 35 US states operate some type of CON program, though they vary widely in the specific services or equipment they target, with 25 states requiring CON for psychiatric services.

Aims of the study: We provide the first empirical estimates on how CON affects the provision of psychiatric services.

Methods: We use Ordinary Least Squares regression to analyze 2010-2016 data on psychiatric CON from the American Health Planning Association together with data on psychiatric facilities and services from the National Mental Health Services Survey.

Results: We find that CON laws targeting psychiatric services are associated with a statistically significant 0.527 fewer psychiatric hospitals per million residents (20% fewer) and 2.19 fewer inpatient psychiatric clients per ten thousand residents (56% fewer). Psychiatric CON is also associated with psychiatric hospitals being 5.35 percentage points less likely to accept Medicare. Our estimates for CON's effect on the number of inpatient psychiatric beds per ten thousand residents and the likelihood of psychiatric hospitals accepting Medicaid, private insurance, or charity care (no charge) are negative but not statistically significant.

Discussion: CON laws may substantially reduce access to psychiatric care. A limitation of our study is that there is almost no variation in which states have psychiatric-related CON laws during the time period of our data (New Hampshire is the only state to change its psychiatric services CON requirement in this period, repealing its CON program entirely in 2016). This precludes the use of preferred econometric techniques such as difference-in-difference.

Implications for health policies: Our results indicate that CON laws may reduce access to inpatient psychiatric care. State policymakers should consider whether CON repeal could be a simple way of enhancing access to psychiatric care.

Implications for further research: While hundreds of articles have examined the effects of CON laws, we believe ours is the first to provide empirical estimates of their effects on mental health care specifically. We hope it is not the last.

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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
×
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