Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35418090›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

How does regulating doctors' admissions affect health expenditures? Evidence from Switzerland.

Michel Fuino, Philipp Trein, Joël Wagner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Michel FuinoDepartment of Actuarial Science, University of Lausanne, Chamberonne - Extranef, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland.
Philipp TreinDepartment of Political Studies, University of Lausanne, Géopolis, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland. philipp.trein@unil.ch.
Joël WagnerDepartment of Actuarial Science, University of Lausanne, Chamberonne - Extranef, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland.

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur F?rderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 100018_169662Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur F?rderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung CRSII5_180350
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCost containment is a major issue for health policy, in many countries. Policymakers have used various measures to deal with this problem. In Switzerland, the national parliament and subnational (cantonal) governments have used moratoriums to limit the admission of specialist doctors and general practitioners.

methodsWe analyze the impact of these regulations on the number of doctors billing in free practice and on the health costs created by medical practice based on records from the data pool of Swiss health insurers (SASIS) from 2007 to 2018 using interrupted time series and difference-in-differences models.

resultsWe demonstrate that the removal of the national moratorium in 2012 increased the number of doctors, but did not augment significantly the direct health costs produced by independent doctors. Furthermore, the reintroduction of regulations at the cantonal level in 2013 and 2014 decreased the number of doctors billing in free practice but, again, did not affect direct health costs.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that regulating healthcare supply through a moratorium on doctors' admissions does not directly contribute to limiting the increase in health expenditures.

Indexed as

General PractitionersHealth ExpendituresCost ControlHealth Care CostsHumansSwitzerlandCost containmentDoctors’ admissionsHealthcare systemMoratorium

Identifiers

PMID35418090
PMCPMC9008894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.