ArticleMedical care research and review : MCRR2024
Public Reporting and Consumer Demand in the Home Health Sector.
Article in Medical care research and review : MCRR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Public Reporting Systems for Evaluating Health Care Quality: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- The Readability of Patient-Facing Information in Public Reporting System: Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the City of Helsinki Website.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Health care report cards improve information and are a crucial part of health care reform of the federal government of the United States. I exploit a natural experiment in the home health sector to assess whether a higher rating under the star ratings program affects patient choice. Higher rated agencies increased their market share by 1.4% or 0.25 (95% confidence interval: [-0.63, 1.12]) percentage points, a practically and statistically insignificant amount. I find no evidence of heterogeneous effects across the rating distribution or over time. I also find precise null effects among consumers expected to be more responsive, including community-entry patients and patients in competitive markets with more options and star types. Agencies may have modestly impeded consumer choice by engaging in some patient selection behaviors, although the evidence is only weakly suggestive. The star ratings are unlikely to improve home health quality despite continued policymaker interest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.