 Why are health care report cards so bad (good)?Journal of Health Economics, 2011, vol. 30, issue 3, 575-590 Abstract: Abstract This paper provides a signaling-game theoretical foundation for empirically testing the effects of quality report cards in the U.S. health care industry. It shows that, when health care providers face an identical distribution of patient illness severities, the multidimensional measures in the existing report cards render them a mechanism that reveals the providers' qualities without causing them to select patients. However, non-identical patient type distributions between providers, attributed to the referring physician, may force the high-quality provider to shun patients in order to signal himself. Despite this imperfection, the existing report cards cause the minimum provider selection compared with alternative report mechanisms. Since the report cards not only may cause providers to select patients, but also cause patients to select providers, the single difference-in-differences estimates used in previous studies are not sufficient to indicate providers' selection behavior. In an updated empirical framework, a treatment effect shall be estimated once every period. Keywords: Report; cards; Signaling; game; Difference-in-differences; Experts (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:30:y:2011:i:3:p:575-590 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Health Economics is currently edited by J. P. Newhouse, A. J. Culyer, R. Frank, K. Claxton and T. McGuire More articles in Journal of Health Economics from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.