The impact of public performance reporting on health plan selection and switching: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The Relationship between Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Innovation: An Empirical Study Based on Meta-Analysis

The growing research interest in the relationship between health insurance and pharmaceutical innovation is driven by their significant impact on healthcare optimization and pharmaceutical development. The existing literature, however, lacks consensus on this relationship and provides no evidence of the magnitude of a correlation. In this context, this study employs meta-analysis to explore the extent to which health insurance affects pharmaceutical innovation. It analyzes 202 observations from 14 independent research samples, using the regression coefficient of health insurance on pharmaceutical innovation as the effect size. The results reveal that there is a strong positive correlation between health insurance and pharmaceutical innovation (r = 0.367, 95% CI = [0.294, 0.436]). Public health insurance exhibits a stronger promoting effect on pharmaceutical innovation than commercial health insurance. The relationship between health insurance and pharmaceutical innovation is moderated by the country of sample origin, data range, journal type, journal impact factor, type of health insurance, and research perspective. Our research findings further elucidate the relationship mechanism between health insurance and pharmaceutical innovation, providing a valuable reference for future explorations in pharmaceutical fields.

The impact of hospital price and quality transparency tools on healthcare spending: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Global spending on health was continuing to rise over the past 20 years. To reduce the growth rates, alleviate information asymmetry, and improve the efficiency of healthcare markets, global health systems have initiated price and quality transparency tools in the hospital industry in the last two decades. OBJECTIVE : The objective of this review is to synthesize whether, to what extent, and how hospital price and quality transparency tools affected 1) the price of healthcare procedures and services, 2) the payments of consumers, and 3) the premium of health insurance plans bonding with hospital networks.

METHODS

A literature search of EMBASE, Web of Science, Econlit, Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL, and PsychINFO was conducted, from inception to Oct 31, 2021. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Study characteristics were extracted, and included studies were scored through a risk of bias assessment framework. This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO with registration No. CRD42022319070.

RESULTS

Of 2157 records identified, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Near 40 percent of studies focused on hospital quality transparency tools, and more than 90 percent of studies were from the US. Hospital price transparency reduced the price of laboratory and imaging tests except for office-visit services. Hospital quality transparency declined the level or growth rates of healthcare spending, while it adversely and significantly raised the price of healthcare services and consumers' payment in higher-ranked or rated facilities, which was referred to as the reputation premium in the healthcare industry. Hospital quality transparency not only leveraged private insurers bonding with a higher-rated hospital network to increase premiums, but also induced their anticipated pricing behaviors.

CONCLUSION

Hospital price and quality transparency was not effective as expected. Future research should explore the understudied consequences of hospital quality transparency programs, such as the reputation/rating premium and its policy intervention.

Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals' performance: A systematic review (2000-2020)

BACKGROUND

Public performance reporting (PPR) of physician and hospital data aims to improve health outcomes by promoting quality improvement and informing consumer choice. However, previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent effects of PPR, potentially due to the various PPR characteristics examined. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the impact and mechanisms (selection and change), by which PPR exerts its influence.

METHODS

Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved from five databases and eight reviews. Data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted. Studies were categorised into: user and provider responses to PPR and impact of PPR on quality of care.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were identified: 24 on user and provider responses to PPR, 14 on impact of PPR on quality of care, and seven on both. Most of the studies reported positive effects of PPR on the selection of providers by patients, purchasers and providers, quality improvement activities in primary care clinics and hospitals, clinical outcomes and patient experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide moderate level of evidence to support the role of PPR in stimulating quality improvement activities, informing consumer choice and improving clinical outcomes. There was some evidence to demonstrate a relationship between PPR and patient experience. The effects of PPR varied across clinical areas which may be related to the type of indicators, level of data reported and the mode of dissemination. It is important to ensure that the design and implementation of PPR considered the perspectives of different users and the health system in which PPR operates in. There is a need to account for factors such as the structural characteristics and culture of the hospitals that could influence the uptake of PPR.