ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
Does access to quality accreditation improve health? - Patient-level evidence from German cancer care.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite medical advancements, the burden of cancer is increasing. Germany introduced the accreditation of local provider networks as organ cancer centers to enhance care quality. Treatment in these centers is associated with higher survival rates, prompting policymakers to advocate for further centralization. While an impact beyond treatment outcomes has been suggested, accreditation's broader effects on population health and potential spillovers across regions remain unclear. This retrospective cohort study evaluates the impact of local access to accredited cancer care on survival for eight cancer types. Using data from the German cancer registry (1999-2018), covering 5.3 million cases, and accreditation records, we identified 861,508 patients with local access to accredited care. Using nearest neighbor matching, incorporating individual and regional factors (e.g., accreditation in neighboring districts), these patients were matched with those who lacked accredited care in their vicinity. Cox proportional hazard models and G-Computation estimated hazard ratios (HR) and intention-to-treat effects for one-, three-, and five-year survival. Access to accredited centers significantly reduces mortality risk for breast, colon, and prostate cancer (HR: 0.87-0.96) and increases five-year survival probabilities for five cancer types (1.8-7.3 percentage points), with effects varying by disease severity. Access in neighboring districts improves survival rates for several cancer types, showing positive spillover effects beyond patients' home districts. These findings emphasize the role of accreditation in improving cancer care and suggest expanding such programs could enhance outcomes without imposing travel burdens on patients.
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.