IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v16y2018i5d10.1007_s40258-018-0414-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Choice of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implementation (TAVI): Do Patient Co-morbidity and Hospital Ownership Type Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Udo Schneider

    (WINEG-Scientific Institute of TK for Benefit and Efficiency in Health Care)

  • Andreas Schmid

    (University of Bayreuth)

  • Roland Linder

    (WINEG-Scientific Institute of TK for Benefit and Efficiency in Health Care)

  • Dirk Horenkamp-Sonntag

    (WINEG-Scientific Institute of TK for Benefit and Efficiency in Health Care)

  • Frank Verheyen

    (Techniker Krankenkasse)

Abstract

Background Innovative technologies challenge healthcare systems, as evidence on costs and benefits frequently usually are slow to reflect new technology. We investigated these dynamics for Germany, using the emergence of transcatheter aortic valve implementation (TAVI) as an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacements (CAVR). Objective We focused on the role of patient co-morbidity—which would be a medical explanation for adopting TAVI—and hospital ownership status, hypothesizing that for-profit facilities are more likely to capitalize on the favorable reimbursement conditions of TAVI. Methods The analysis uses claims data from the Techniker Krankenkasse, the largest health insurance fund in Germany, for the years 2009–2015, covering 2892 patients with TAVI and 9523 with CAVR. The decision on TAVI versus CAVR was estimated for patient-level data, that is, socioeconomic data as well as co-morbidity. At the hospital level, we included the ownership type. We also controlled for effects of the respective owner (rather than the type of ownership), including a random intercept. Results While the co-morbidity score of TAVI patients was much higher in the early years, over time, the score almost converged with that of CAVR patients. This is in agreement with emerging evidence that suggests the use of TAVI also leads to better patient outcomes. Our results indicate that the type of ownership does not drive the switch to TAVI. We found little, if any, effect from the respective owner, regardless of ownership type. Conclusion Overall, the effects of co-morbidity suggest that providers acted responsibly when adopting TAVI while evidence was still emerging.

Suggested Citation

  • Udo Schneider & Andreas Schmid & Roland Linder & Dirk Horenkamp-Sonntag & Frank Verheyen, 2018. "The Choice of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implementation (TAVI): Do Patient Co-morbidity and Hospital Ownership Type Matter?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 735-744, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0414-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0414-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0414-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-018-0414-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jill R. Horwitz & Charleen Hsuan & Austin Nichols, 2018. "The Role of Hospital and Market Characteristics in Invasive Cardiac Service Diffusion," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 53(1), pages 81-115, August.
    2. Pita Barros, Pedro & Siciliani, Luigi, 2011. "Public and Private Sector Interface," Handbook of Health Economics, in: Mark V. Pauly & Thomas G. Mcguire & Pedro P. Barros (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 927-1001, Elsevier.
    3. Sloan, Frank A., 2000. "Not-for-profit ownership and hospital behavior," Handbook of Health Economics, in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 21, pages 1141-1174, Elsevier.
    4. Sarah Neubauer & Kristine Kreis & Mike Klora & Jan Zeidler, 2017. "Access, use, and challenges of claims data analyses in Germany," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(5), pages 533-536, June.
    5. Mark V. Pauly & Thomas G. Mcguire & Pedro P. Barros (ed.), 2011. "Handbook of Health Economics," Handbook of Health Economics, Elsevier, volume 2, number 2.
    6. A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), 2000. "Handbook of Health Economics," Handbook of Health Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Gaynor & Kate Ho & Robert J. Town, 2015. "The Industrial Organization of Health-Care Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 235-284, June.
    2. Yang, Ou & Chan, Marc K. & Cheng, Terence C. & Yong, Jongsay, 2020. "Cream skimming: Theory and evidence from hospital transfers and capacity utilization," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 68-87.
    3. Moscelli, Giuseppe & Gravelle, Hugh & Siciliani, Luigi & Gutacker, Nils, 2018. "The effect of hospital ownership on quality of care: Evidence from England," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 322-344.
    4. Baltagi, Badi H. & Yen, Yin-Fang, 2014. "Hospital treatment rates and spillover effects: Does ownership matter?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 193-202.
    5. Rudi Rocha & Maíra Coube Salmen & Tatiana Lima & Fábio Miessi & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Matías Mrejen & Beatriz Rache & Rodrigo R. Soares & Mônica Viegas, 2021. "Considerações sobre a Reforma da Lei dos Planos de Saúde e seus Possíveis Impactos sobre o SUS," Technical Notes 024, Instituto de Estudos para Políticas de Saúde.
    6. Jeffrey Clemens & Joshua D. Gottlieb & Jeffrey Hicks, 2021. "How Would Medicare for All Affect Health System Capacity? Evidence from Medicare for Some," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 225-262.
    7. Indranil Dutta & Mario Pezzino & Yan Song, 2022. "Should developing countries ban dual practice by physicians? Analysis under mixed hospital competition," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(11), pages 2289-2310, November.
    8. Karen Eggleston & Winnie Yip, 2004. "Hospital Competition under Regulated Prices: Application to Urban Health Sector Reforms in China," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 343-368, December.
    9. Wolfgang Maennig & Viktoria C. E. Schumann, 2022. "Prevention Effect of News Shocks in Anti-Doping Policies," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 23(4), pages 431-459, May.
    10. Alexia Gaudeul, 2008. "Consumer Welfare and Market Structure in a Model of Competition between Open Source and Proprietary Software," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2008-31, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    11. Nolan Miller & Karen Eggleston & Richard Zeckhauser, 2006. "Provider choice of quality and surplus," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 103-117, June.
    12. Chou, Shin-Yi, 2002. "Asymmetric information, ownership and quality of care: an empirical analysis of nursing homes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 293-311, March.
    13. Erik Biørn & Terje Hagen & Tor Iversen & Jon Magnussen, 2010. "How different are hospitals’ responses to a financial reform? The impact on efficiency of activity-based financing," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, March.
    14. Benedic N. Ippolito, 2016. "Financial incentives, hospital care, and health outcomes: Evidence from fair pricing laws," AEI Economics Working Papers 863745, American Enterprise Institute.
    15. Zack Cooper & Stuart V Craig & Martin Gaynor & John Van Reenen, 2019. "The Price Ain’t Right? Hospital Prices and Health Spending on the Privately Insured," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 51-107.
    16. Helen G. Levy & Edward C. Norton & Jeffrey A. Smith, 2018. "Tobacco Regulation and Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Should We Value Foregone Consumer Surplus?," American Journal of Health Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, Winter.
    17. Jürgen Maurer, 2016. "Inspecting the Mechanism," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(7), pages 887-899, October.
    18. Michael Kuhn & Robert Nuscheler, 2020. "Saving the public from the private? Incentives and outcomes in dual practice," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(4), pages 1120-1150, August.
    19. Pilny, Adam & Wübker, Ansgar & Ziebarth, Nicolas R., 2017. "Introducing risk adjustment and free health plan choice in employer-based health insurance: Evidence from Germany," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 330-351.
    20. Nathan E. Wilson, 2021. "The Impact of Competition on Investment: Evidence From California Hospitals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 1-32, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0414-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.