Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
The European Journal of Health Economics
Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics 7/2019

29.05.2019 | Original Paper

Changing payment instruments and the utilisation of new medical technologies

verfasst von: Patricia Ex, Cornelia Henschke

Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Ausgabe 7/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

This paper empirically investigates the impact of additional reimbursement instruments on the diffusion of new technologies in inpatient care. Using 2010–2014 German panel data on hospital level for every patient undergoing coronary angioplasty, this study examines the utilisation of drug-eluting balloon catheters (DEB) over time while additional payment instruments changed. Hypothesising that the utilisation of DEB increased abruptly when a new reimbursement instrument came into force, we estimate a fixed effects regression comparing years with a change and years where the reimbursement instrument remained the same. The model is adjusted for patient age and severity of the disease. The utilisation of DEB increased from 8407 in 2010 to 19,065 in 2014. Hospitals used significantly more DEB when an additional payment instrument changed compared to years when it remained the same. The increase was roughly twice as large. In short, hospitals are incentivised to utilise new technologies if the reimbursement changes to an instrument that is designed in a more reliable way, e.g. including less bureaucracy or guaranteeing fixed prices.
Fußnoten
1
DRG payment rates are calculated by multiplying the respective cost weight of a DRG with the national 2014 average base rate of 3156.82 euros, which in reality differed among the 16 federal states ranging from 1113 and 3325 euros.
 
Literatur
1.
Barnum, H., Kutzin, J., Saxenian, H.: Incentives and provider payment methods. Int J. Health Plann. Manag. 10(1), 23–45 (1995)CrossRef
2.
McCullough, J.S.: The adoption of hospital information systems. Health Econ. 17(5), 649–664 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
3.
Pirson, M., Schenker, L., Martins, D., Dung, D., Chalé, J.J., Lecrercq, P.: What can we learn from international comparisons of costs by DRG? Eur. J. Health Econ. 14(1), 67–73 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
4.
Hernandez, J., Machacz, S.F., Robinson, J.C.: US hospital payment adjustments for innovative technology lag behind those in Germany, France, and Japan. Health Aff. (Millwood) 34(2), 261–270 (2015)CrossRef
5.
Kesteloot, K., Voet, N.: Incentives for cooperation in quality improvement among hospitals? The impact of the reimbursement system. J. Health Econ. 17(6), 701–728 (1998)CrossRefPubMed
6.
Lee, R.H., Waldman, D.M.: The diffusion of innovations in hospitals. Some econometric considerations. J. Health Econ. 4(4), 373–380 (1985)CrossRefPubMed
7.
Scheller-Kreinsen, D., Quentin, W., Busse, R.: DRG-based hospital payment systems and technological innovation in 12 European countries. Value Health 14(8), 1166–1172 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
8.
Bech, M., Christiansen, T., Dunham, K., Lauridsen, J., Lyttkens, C.H., McDonald, K., McGuire, A.: The influence of economic incentives and regulatory factors on the adoption of treatment technologies: a case study of technologies used to treat heart attacks. Health Econ. 18(10), 1114–1132 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
9.
Cappellaro, G., Ghislandi, S., Anessi-Pessina, E.: Diffusion of medical technology: the role of financing. Health Policy 100(1), 51–59 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
10.
Cutler, D.M., Huckman, R.S.: Technological development and medical productivity: the diffusion of angioplasty in New York State. J. Health Econ. 22(2), 187–217 (2003)CrossRefPubMed
11.
Romeo, A.A., Wagner, J.L., Lee, R.H.: Prospective reimbursement and the diffusion of new technologies in hospitals. J. Health Econ. 3(1), 1–24 (1984)CrossRefPubMed
12.
Sloan, F.A., Valvona, J., Perrin, J.M., Adamache, K.W.: Diffusion of surgical technology. An exploratory study. J. Health Econ. 5(1), 31–61 (1986)CrossRefPubMed
13.
Cots, F., Chiarello, P., Salvador, X., Castells, X., Quentin, W.: DRG-based hospital payment: intended and unintended consequences. In: Busse, R., Geissler, A., Quentin, W., Wiley, M. (eds.) Diagnosis-related groups in Europe. Moving towards transparency, efficiency and quality in hospitals, pp. 75–92. Open University Press, Maidenhead (2011)
14.
Farrar, S., Yi, D., Sutton, M., Chalkley, M., Sussex, J., Scott, A.: Has payment by results affected the way that English hospitals provide care? Difference-in-differences analysis. BMJ 339(7720), 554–556 (2009)
15.
Bäumler, M.: Which non-clinical factors influence the use of innovative implants? The example of drug-releasing coronary stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a multilevel regression analysis. Das Gesundheitswesen 75(12), 822–831 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
16.
Sorenson, C., Drummond, M., Wilkinson, G.: Use of innovation payments to encourage the adoption of new medical technologies in the English NHS. Health Policy Technol. 2(3), 168–173 (2013)CrossRef
17.
18.
Weiner, S.L., Maxwell, J.H., Sapolsky, H.M., Dunn, D.L., Hsiao, W.C.: Economic incentives and organizational realities: managing hospitals under DRGs. Milbank Q. 65(4), 463–487 (1987)CrossRefPubMed
19.
Laffont, J.J., Martimort, D.: The theory of incentives: the principal-agent model. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2002)
20.
21.
Smith, A.: The wealth of nations. The Modern Library, New York (1776)
22.
Barnard, C.I., Andrews, K.R.: The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1938)
23.
Baker, L.: Managed care and technology adoption in health care: evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. J. Health Econ. 20(3), 395–421 (2000)CrossRef
24.
Clyde, A.T., Bockstedt, L., Farkas, J.A., Jackson, C.: Experience with Medicare’s new technology add-on payment program. Health Aff. (Millwood) 27(6), 1632–1641 (2008)CrossRef
25.
Sorenson, C., Drummond, M., Torbica, A., Callea, G., Mateus, C.: The role of hospital payments in the adoption of new medical technologies: an international survey of current practice. Health Econ. Policy Law 10(2), 133–159 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
26.
Schreyögg, J., Stargardt, T., Tiemann, O., Busse, R.: Methods to determine reimbursement rates for diagnosis related groups (DRG): a comparison of nine European countries. Health Care Manag. Sci. 9(3), 215–223 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
27.
Ex, P., Vogt, V., Busse, R., Henschke, C.: The Reimbursement of New Medical Technologies in the German inpatient sector: what factors explain which hospitals receive innovation payments? HealthEcon, Pol, Law (2019)
28.
Henschke, C., Bäumler, M., Weid, S., Gaskins, M., Busse, R.: Extrabudgetary (‘NUB’) payments: a gateway for introducing new medical devices into the German inpatient reimbursement system? J. Manag. Marketing Healthc 3(2), 119–133 (2010)CrossRef
29.
Gruntzig, A.: Transluminal dilatation of coronary–artery stenosis. Lancet 1(8058), 263 (1978)CrossRefPubMed
30.
Mark, D.B., Nelson, C.L., Califf, R.M., Harrell, F.E., Lee, K.L., Jones, R.H., Fortin, D.F., Stack, R.S., Glower, D.D., Smith, L.R., et al.: Continuing evolution of therapy for coronary artery disease. Initial results from the era of coronary angioplasty. Circulation 89(5), 2015–2025 (1994)CrossRefPubMed
31.
Byrne, R.A., Joner, M., Alfonso, F., Kastrati, A.: Drug-coated balloon therapy in coronary and peripheral artery disease. Nat Rev Cardiol 11(1), 13–23 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
32.
GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators: Global, regional, and national age–sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 385(9963), 117–171 (2015)CrossRef
33.
34.
Wooldridge, J.M.: Introductory Econometrics: A modern approach, 5th edn. South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason (2013)
35.
Mitchell, M.N.: Interpreting and visualizing regression models using Stata. Stata Press, College Station (2012)
36.
Afshartous, D., Preston, R.: Key results of interaction models with centering. J. Stat. Educ. 19(3), 1–24 (2011)CrossRef
37.
Robinson, C., Randall, S.: Interaction effect. Centering, variance inflation factor, and interpretation issues. Mult Linear Regres Viewp 35(1), 6–11 (2009)
38.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A.: Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata, 3rd edn. Stata Press, College Station (2012)
39.
Adler-Milstein, J., Everson, J., Lee, S.Y.: EHR adoption and hospital performance: time-related effects. Health Serv. Res. 50(6), 1751–1771 (2015)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Mabotuwana, T., Hall, C.S., Flacke, S., Thomas, S., Wald, C.: Inpatient complexity in radiology—a practical application of the case mix index metric. J. Digit. Imaging 30(3), 301–308 (2017)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K.: Microeconometrics using Stata, revised. Stata Press, College Station (2010)
42.
Giesselmann, M., Windzio, M.: Regressionsmodelle zur Analyse von Paneldaten. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden (2012)CrossRef
43.
44.
45.
46.
Knol, M.J., Pestman, W.R., Grobbee, D.E.: The (mis)use of overlap of confidence intervals to assess effect modification. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 26(4), 253–254 (2011)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Jönsson, B.: Disruptive innovation and EU health policy. Eur. J. Health Econ. 18(3), 269–272 (2017)CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
Lamiraud, K., Lhuillery, S.: Endogenous technology adoption and medical costs. Health Econ. 25(9), 1123–1147 (2016)CrossRefPubMed
50.
Wijns, W.: ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 31, 2501–2555 (2010)CrossRefPubMed
51.
Windecker, S.: ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardinal revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 25, 2541–2619 (2014)
52.
Henschke, C., Bäumler, M., Weid, S., Busse, R.: Extrabudgetary (‘NUB’) payments: a gateway for introducing new medical devices into the German inpatient reimbursement system? J. Manag. Marketing Healthc. 3(2), 119–133 (2010)CrossRef
53.
Dafny, L.S.: How do hospitals respond to price changes? Am. Econ. Rev. 95(5), 1525–1547 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Changing payment instruments and the utilisation of new medical technologies
verfasst von
Patricia Ex
Cornelia Henschke
Publikationsdatum
29.05.2019
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Ausgabe 7/2019
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Elektronische ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01056-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2019

The European Journal of Health Economics 7/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Economic evaluations of pharmacist-led medication review in outpatients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidaemia: a systematic review

Original Paper

Spatial risk adjustment between health insurances: using GWR in risk adjustment models to conserve incentives for service optimisation and reduce MAUP

Original Paper

ADHD and later-life labor market outcomes in the United States

Original Paper

The joint effect of health shocks and eligibility for social security on labor supply

Original Paper

Value of a QALY and VSI estimated with the chained approach

Original Paper

Is socioeconomic inequality in postnatal depression an early-life root of disadvantage for children?