↓ Skip to main content

The impact of global budgeting on treatment intensity and outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
The impact of global budgeting on treatment intensity and outcomes
Published in
International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10754-014-9150-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kamhon Kan, Shu-Fen Li, Wei-Der Tsai

Abstract

This paper investigates the effects of global budgets on the amount of resources devoted to cardio-cerebrovascular disease patients by hospitals of different ownership types and these patients' outcomes. Theoretical models predict that hospitals have financial incentives to increase the quantity of treatments applied to patients. This is especially true for for-profit hospitals. If that's the case, it is important to examine whether the increase in treatment quantity is translated into better treatment outcomes. Our analyses take advantage of the National Health Insurance of Taiwan's implementation of global budgets for hospitals in 2002. Our data come from the National Health Insurance's claim records, covering the universe of hospitalized patients suffering acute myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, hemorrhagic stroke, and ischemic stroke. Regression analyses are carried out separately for government, private not-for-profit and for-profit hospitals. We find that for-profit hospitals and private not-for-profit hospitals did increase their treatment intensity for cardio-cerebrovascular disease patients after the 2002 implementation of global budgets. However, this was not accompanied by an improvement in these patients' mortality rates. This reveals a waste of medical resources and implies that aggregate expenditure caps should be supplemented by other designs to prevent resources misallocation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 30%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Unspecified 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 30%
Unspecified 4 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 11%
Other 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2014.
All research outputs
#6,828,777
of 12,342,283 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics
#57
of 81 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,883
of 220,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,342,283 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 81 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 220,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them