Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33417173›Full record

ArticleHealth care management science2021

Patient selection in the presence of regulatory oversight based on healthcare report cards of providers: the case of organ transplantation.

Mariétou H Ouayogodé, Kurt E Schnier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care management science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mariétou H OuayogodéSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 610 Walnut St, Madison, WI, 53726, USA. Marietou.Ouayogode@wisc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4628-0015
Kurt E SchnierSchool of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts, University of California, Merced, 5200 North Lake Road, Merced, CA, 95343, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many healthcare report cards provide information to consumers but do not represent a constraint on the behavior of healthcare providers. This is not the case with the report cards utilized in kidney transplantation. These report cards became more salient and binding, with additional oversight, in 2007 under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Conditions of Participation. This research investigates whether the additional oversight based on report card outcomes influences patient selection via waiting-list registrations at transplant centers that meet regulatory standards. Using data from a national registry of kidney transplant candidates from 2003 through 2010, we apply a before-and-after estimation strategy that isolates the impact of a binding report card. A sorting equilibrium model is employed to account for center-level heterogeneity and the presence of congestion/agglomeration effects and the results are compared to a conditional logit specification. Our results indicate that patient waiting-list registrations change in response to the quality information similarly on average if there is additional regulation or not. We also find evidence of congestion effects when spatial choice sets are smaller: new patient registrations are less likely to occur at a center with a long waiting list when fewer options are available.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionWaiting ListsCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.FemaleHumansKidney Failure, ChronicKidney TransplantationMaleQuality Indicators, Health CareUnited StatesCompetitionHealthcare report cardsPatient selectionRegulationTransplantation

Identifiers

PMID33417173
PMCPMC7791538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.