Health Care Reform
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Nearly 100 health economists from across the United States signed a pledge urging U.S. presidential candidates to make chronic disease a policy priority. Karen Eggleston, a scholar of comparative healthcare systems and director of Stanford’s Asia Health Policy Program, is one of the signatories. 

The pledge calls upon the candidates to reset the national healthcare agenda to better address chronic disease, which causes seven out of 10 deaths in America and affects the economy through lost productivity and disability.

Read the pledge below.

Hero Image
gettyimages 497595451 Getty Images
All News button
1
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

This season, “Downton Abbey's” plot line has health policy wonks on the edge of their seats: a heated debate about hospital consolidation that closely parallels what’s going on in the U.S. health care system today.

If you’re not a Downton fan, here’s a quick plot recap by Kaiser Health News reporter Jenny Gold: It’s 1925 for the lords and ladies at Downton Abbey. Think flapper dresses, cocktail parties and women’s rights. And a big hospital in the nearby city of York is making a play to take over the Downton Cottage Hospital next to the posh estate.

As Maggie Smith’s character, the Dowager Countess of Grantham, sees it, “The Royal Yorkshire county hospital wants to take over our little hospital, which is outrageous!”

Stanford Health Policy’s Kathy McDonald — an unabashed fan of the popular PBS period piece — says things haven’t changed that much today. There has been an uptick in hospital consolidations since 2010, with about 100 taking place each year, she says.

You can listen to McDonald’s interview with Gold, who took the Downton debate to the American Public Media radio show, “Marketplace.”

Image
screen shot 2016 02 16 at 1 55 01 pm

 

Hero Image
dowager countess pbs PBS
All News button
1
Authors
Beth Duff-Brown
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

A substantial share of all malpractice claims in the United States is attributable to a small number of physicians, according to a study led by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Melbourne.

The team found that just 1 percent of practicing physicians accounted for 32 percent of paid malpractice claims over a decade. The study also found that claim-prone physicians had a number of distinctive characteristics, such as practicing specialities that are riskier than others.

“The fact that these frequent flyers looked quite different from their colleagues — in terms of specialty, gender, age and several other characteristics — was the most exciting finding,” said David Studdert, professor of medicine and of law at Stanford. “It suggests that it may be possible to identify high-risk physicians before they accumulate troubling track records, and then do something to stop that happening.”

Studdert is also a core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy and the lead author of the study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Concentrated among a small group

“The degree to which the claims were concentrated among a small group of physicians was really striking,” added Studdert, an expert in the fields of health law and empirical legal research.

The researchers analyzed information from the U.S. National Practitioner Data Bank, a data repository established by Congress in 1986 to improve health-care quality. Their study covered 66,426 malpractice claims paid against 54,099 physicians between January 2005 and December 2014.

Almost one-third of the claims related to patient deaths; another 54 percent related to serious physical injury. Only 3 percent of the claims were litigated to verdicts for the plaintiff. The remainder resulted in out-of-court settlements. Settlements and court-ordered payments averaged $371,054.

“The concentration of malpractice claims among physicians we observed is larger than has been found in the few previous studies that have looked at this distributional question,” said Michelle Mello, a co-author of the study and professor of law and of health research and policy at Stanford.

“It’s difficult to say why that is,” Mello added. “The earlier estimates come from studies of single insurers or single states, whereas ours is national in scope. Also, the earlier numbers are more than 25 years old now, and claim-prone physicians may be a bigger problem today than they were then.”

Encouraging greater awareness

The authors recommend that all institutions that handle large numbers of patient complaints and claims develop a greater awareness of how these events are distributed among clinicians.

“In our experience, few do,” they write in the paper. “With notable exceptions, fewer still systematically identify and intervene with practitioners who are at high risk for future claims.”

The most important predictor of incurring repeated claims was a physician’s claim history. Compared to physicians with only one prior paid claim, physicians who had two paid claims had almost twice the risk of another one; physicians with three paid claims had three times the risk of recurrence; and physicians with six or more paid claims had more than 12 times the risk of recurrence.

“Risk also varied widely according to specialty,” the authors noted. “As compared with the risk of recurrence among internal medicine physicians, the risk of recurrence was approximately double among neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons, plastic surgeons and obstetrician-gynecologists.”

The lowest risks of recurrence occurred among psychiatrists and pediatricians.

Male physicians had a 40 percent higher risk of recurrence than female physicians, and the risk of recurrence among physicians younger than 35 was about one-third the risk among their older colleagues, the study found.

“If it turns out to be feasible to predict accurately which physicians are going to become frequent flyers, that is something liability insurers and hospitals would be very interested in doing,” Studdert said.

“But institutions will then face a choice,” he added. “One option is to kick out the high-risk clinicians, essentially making them someone else’s problem. Our hope is that the knowledge would be used in a more constructive way, to target measures like peer counseling, retraining, and enhanced supervision. These are interventions that have real potential both to protect patients and reduce litigation risks.”

Other stories about the study:

The New York Times Well Blog

The Huffington Post

KQED Public Radio

U.S. News & World Report

CBS News

Reuters

Medscape

Hero Image
malpractice justice
All News button
1

Encina Hall, Room C338-H1
616 Serra Street
Stanford, CA 94305-6019

(650) 724-9362 (650) 723-1919
0
Program Manager
photo_NJ_(3).jpg MPP

Neesha Joseph is Program Manager for the Stanford Center on the Demography and Economics of Health and Aging (CDEHA) and the Stanford Center on Advancing Decision Making in Aging (CADMA). In this capacity she oversees center operations, including coordinating pilot projects and center conferences and activities. She also conducts policy research on health care topics, such as the impact of age on innovation in health research, the cost and disease management implications of patient comorbidity in Medicare populations, and the impact of of health care reform on physician human capital.

She brings with her experience in health research and management. Previously Neesha worked as a Research Analyst specializing in health economics at the Milken Institute, where she was involved with various aging initiatives. She received a master's degree in public policy from the USC Price School of Public Policy, and her areas of interest include health economics and international development.

Paragraphs

Controversy surrounds the role of the private sector in health service delivery, including primary care and population health services. China’s recent health reforms call for non-discrimination against private providers and emphasize strengthening primary care, but formal contracting-out initiatives remain few, and the associated empirical evidence is very limited. This paper presents a case study of contracting with private providers for urban primary and preventive health services in Shandong Province, China. The case study draws on three primary sources of data: administrative records; a household survey of over 1600 community residents in Weifang and City Y; and a provider survey of over 1000 staff at community health stations (CHS) in both Weifang and City Y. We supplement the quantitative data with one-on-one, in-depth interviews with key informants, including local officials in charge of public health and government finance.

We find significant differences in patient mix: Residents in the communities served by private community health stations are of lower socioeconomic status (more likely to be uninsured and to report poor health), compared to residents in communities served by a government-owned CHS. Analysis of a household survey of 1013 residents shows that they are more willing to do a routine health exam at their neighborhood CHS if they are of low socioeconomic status (as measured either by education or income). Government and private community health stations in Weifang did not statistically differ in their performance on contracted dimensions, after controlling for size and other CHS characteristics. In contrast, the comparison City Y had lower performance and a large gap between public and private providers. We discuss why these patterns arose and what policymakers and residents considered to be the main issues and concerns regarding primary care services.

Keywords:

Private providers; Contracting; Ownership; Primary care; Prevention; China

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Health Economics Review
Authors
Yan Wang (former)
Karen Eggleston
-

In spring 2009, China’s leadership announced ambitious national health reforms. Have the five stated goals of the first three years of reform been met? What policies will China pursue in the next phase? As a prominent advisor to China's State Council Health Reform Office, Liu will discuss progress and prospects for reforms—especially the role of the private sector within the health system—within the context of China’s 2012 leadership transition.

Gordon Liu is a professor of economics at Peking University's (PKU) Guanghua School of Management, and director of PKU's China Center for Health Economic Research. Previously, he served as a tenured associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2000–2006), and as an assistant professor at the University of Southern California (1994–2000).

Liu's primary research interests include health and development economics, health policy and reform, and pharmaceutical economics. His current research is funded by the State Council Health Reform Office, the National Science Foundation, UNICEF, and the China Medical Board.

Liu currently serves on the State Council Health Reform Advisory Commission, and the Expert Panel for the State Ministry of Human Resource and Social Security. He serves as co-editor for the journal Value in Health, and as editor-in-chief for China Journal of Pharmaceutical Economics. He sits on the editorial boards for the European Health Economic Review, Global Handbook for Health Economics, and Chinese Journal of Health Economics.

He received his PhD in Economics from the City University of New York Graduate School while working as a graduate research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research under the supervision of Michael Grossman (1986–1991). He obtained post-doctoral training at Harvard University with William Hsiao (1992–1993). Liu has served as the president for the Chinese Economists Society, and chair for the Asian Consortium for the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

Philippines Conference Room

Gordon Liu Professor of Economics Speaker Peking University Guanghua School of Management
Seminars
-

The new health reform started in 2009 has shown the determination of the Chinese government, especially the central government, to increase its responsibility in the health sector. The most obvious manifestation of this commitment would be to increase government health expenditure (GHE). But there is still a hot debate about whether the government should allocate more public finds to health or just deepen the marketization of the health sector. Moreover, commitments at the central and local levels are not the same: local government responsibility for GHE is high, and commitments by the central government to increase GHE have not translated into increases in local government GHE as much as proposed in the national health reform.

Our research seeks to answer two questions: What was the actual pattern of GHE? And why did China’s local governments respond as they did? We first discuss the necessity of public financing for health care, and then analyze how intergovernmental economic competition affects local governments’ behavior under “Chinese-style decentralization” (known as fiscal decentralization with political centralization). Empirically, we apply a dynamic panel data model to provincial panel data from 1991 to 2007 to identify the effect of GHE on health performance in each province over time, using infant mortality and some morbidity metrics as health performance variables. We also examine differences across regions, as well as before and after the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2003.

Our analysis provides evidence that Chinese-style decentralization negatively impacted GHE. The main findings are as follows:

  1. Increasing GHE did improve health performance, and this improvement was mainly driven by the GHE through the health department directly, not through spending by other governmental departments that also impact health. However, pursuit of economic performance lowered local governments’ GHE, mainly by decreasing GHE through local health departments.
  2. Compared with in the eastern and western regions, this health improvement was not significant in China’s middle regions, where the intergovernmental economic competition leads to much less GHE through health departments.
  3. The outburst of SARS in 2003 further increased the positive effect from GHE through local health departments, while the effect from GHE through other departments was not equally significant.

All these results suggest that adjusting the structure of public health financing, reforming the fiscal system, and improving the performance evaluation system for local governments are critical for the success of China’s on-going health reform.

Philippines Conference Room

Shorenstein APARC
Stanford University
Encina Hall, Room C335
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 736-0771 (650) 723-6530
0
2011 Shorenstein-Spolgi Fellow in Comparative Health Policy
Qiulin_Chen3x4.jpg MA, PhD

Qiulin Chen is a postdoctoral fellow of Shorenstein APARC and a member of the center's Asia Health Policy Program. His main interest of research is health economics and public finance, focusing on policy and outcome comparison of health care systems and Chinese health reform. His dissertation focused on performance comparison between public (or governmental) and private health care financing, between local and central government responsibility on health care, between contracted and integrated health care system. In particular, his dissertation examined under Chinese-style decentralization, known as fiscal decentralization with political centralization, how economic competition affect local government's behaviour on health investment, and why public contracted system obstructs health performance and provides one channel of such effects in terms of preventive care and public health. He is currently involved in a comparative research project on demographic change in East Asia based on the National Transfer Accounts data and analysis.

Chen's recent publication is "The changing pattern of China's public services" (with Ling Li and Yu Jiang) in Population Aging and the Generational Economy: A Global Perspective (Ronald Lee and Andrew Mason, editors), forthcoming 2011. Before studying in Stanford, he has published more than 10 papers in academic journals in Chinese, such as Jing Ji Yan Jiu (Economic Research) and Zhong Guo Wei Sheng Jing Ji (Chinese Health Economics), and 5 book chapters. He has participated in about 20 research projects, such as A Design of Framework for Healthcare Reform in China which is commissioned by the State Council Working Party on Health Reform, Strategy Planning Study of "Healthy China 2020" which is commissioned by the Minister of Health, and Health Challenge in the Aging Society and It's Policy Implication funded by Chinese National Natural Science Foundation.

Chen earned his Ph.D. in Economics from Peking University in 2010, and earned a B.A. in Business Administration from Nanjing University in 2001. From 2004 through 2008, he was Executive Assistant of the Director of the China Centre for Economic Research at Peking University (CCER). He is also a postdoctoral fellow of National School of Development at Peking University (Its predecessor is CCER).

CV
Qiulin Chen 2011 Shorenstein-Spogli Fellow in Comparative Health Policy Speaker Stanford University
Seminars
Subscribe to Health Care Reform