ArticleHealth economics2026
Waiting Time Prioritisation for Public and Private Providers: Evidence From Hip Replacement Surgery.
Article in Health economics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Information and Surgery Decisions: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Health economics · 2026Article
- Waiting times for health services, health, and labour market outcomes.European journal of public health · 2026Review
- Inequality in provider and patient-initiated healthcare cancellations during Covid-19.Economics and human biology · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic inequalities in waiting times for breast cancer surgery.Health economics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Waiting times for planned health care treatments have been increasing in England and other OECD countries. One policy to reduce the impact of waiting times on patients' health is for doctors to prioritise patients according to their health status. This study tests the extent to which publicly-funded patients in poorer health are prioritised on the list, and whether prioritisation differs between public and private providers. We use hospital administrative data in 2015-2021 on hip replacements in England. Our results provide evidence of inpatient waiting-time prioritisation (from specialist addition to list to admission for surgery) based on pre-operative health with a difference of at least 15 days between patients with lowest and highest pre-operative health. The gradient becomes steeper as waiting times increase, and much steeper during COVID-19. While outpatient waiting times (from referral to specialist visit) comprise a substantial proportion of total time waited (inpatient plus outpatient), we find limited evidence of outpatient waiting time prioritisation. Differences in inpatient waiting-time prioritisation between public and private providers are mostly due to different casemix and shorter average waiting times by private providers. We also simulate the effect of prioritisation policies that reduce inpatient waiting times for patients with low pre-operative health by 20% while simultaneously increasing it for those with high pre-operative health. We find that these policies could generate health gains of 183 QALYs in a given year. We conclude that there is scope for improving prioritisation of patients on the waiting list.
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.