Competition and medical groups: A survivor analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(85)90005-0Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper extends the survivor analysis of medical practice provided by Frech and Ginsburg (1974). Changes in the distribution of medical practice sizes are examined for the periods 1965–1969, 1969–1975, and 1975–1980. Through 1975, we find that, almost uniformly, all sizes of medical groups were found to be optimal. In particular, the optimality of large (100 or more physicians) multi-specialty groups was strongly confirmed. Later data, however, suggest that the equilibrium size distribution may have shifted. For the 1975–1980 period only large multi-specialty groups continue to be in the optimal size range. In addition, we find some evidence that suggests that solo practices may be optimal in some geographic regions.

References (19)

  • Bruce E. Balfe et al.

    Survey of medical groups in the U.S., 1965

    (1968)
  • Catherine M. Bidese et al.

    Physician characteristics and distribution in the U.S.

    (1982)
  • Roger D. Blair et al.

    A survivor analysis of commercial health insurers

    Journal of Business

    (1978)
  • Alain C. Enthoven

    Competition of alternative delivery systems

  • Richard Ernst

    Ancillary production and the size of physician's practice

    Inquiry

    (1976)
  • H.E. Frech et al.

    Optimal scale in medical practice: A survivor analysis

    Journal of Business

    (1974)
  • Louis J. Goodman et al.

    Physician distribution and medical licensure in the U.S., 1975

    (1976)
  • Louis J. Goodman et al.

    Group medical practice in the U.S., 1975

    (1976)
  • James N. Haug et al.

    Distribution of physicians, hospitals, and hospital beds in the U.S., 1969

    (1970)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

The research for this paper was completed while both authors were employed at the AMA's Center for Health Policy Research. The views and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the official position of the AMA or The Urban Institute or its sponsors. An earlier version was presented at the 1983 Allied Social Sciences Association Meetings. Thanks are due to two anonynous referees for comments on an earlier draft. Any remaining errors or omissions are entirely our responsibility.

View full text