Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Clients’ outcomes from providers’ networks: the role of relational exclusivity and complementary capabilities


Zitieren

Figure 1:

High and low relational exclusivity. Note: Relational exclusivity is an attribute of the black node. Line thickness is proportional to relation intensity.
High and low relational exclusivity. Note: Relational exclusivity is an attribute of the black node. Line thickness is proportional to relation intensity.

Figure 2:

The marginal effect of relational exclusivity across the range of the clinical complementarity variable. Note: The 95% confidence interval shown in grey. The line is thicker where the marginal effect is different from zero at p < 0.05.
The marginal effect of relational exclusivity across the range of the clinical complementarity variable. Note: The 95% confidence interval shown in grey. The line is thicker where the marginal effect is different from zero at p < 0.05.

The flow of referral patients by year and relative risk-standardized readmission rate.

Patients referred to hospitals where readmission rate is
Yearlower (better) than in sending hospitalhigher (worse) than in sending hospitalsame as in sending hospital
20068,5249,454153
20077,7938,6960
20087,6707,8690
20097,2197,599566
Total31,20633,618719

Variables in the analysis: descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix.

VariableMSD123456789101112
1. Patient benefit−1.386.54
2. Beds in focal hospital205.9271.5−0.43**
3. Average beds in partner hospitals398.3191.9−0.12**−0.06
4. Occupancy rate0.690.21−0.18**0.30**−0.03
5. Average distance to partners (km)21.8616.15−0.15**0.11*0.010.18**
6. Private hospital0.460.500.18**−0.25**0.03−0.24**−0.41**
7. Referral patients sent in year153.7225.4−0.030.52**−0.13**0.40**0.03−0.30**
8. Referral patients received in year153.7218.1−0.020.62**−0.090.30**−0.06−0.030.45**
9. Case mix index0.890.97−0.34**0.27**0.020.02−0.100.12*−0.040.30**
10. Comparative performance index1.000.19−0.12*0.19**0.070.16**0.001−0.23**.0.14**−0.010.02
11. Risk-standardized readmission rate0.030.04−0.37**0.19**0.020.04−0.02−0.10**−0.020.070.25**0.15**
12. Clinical complementarity with partners0.370.22−0.20**0.53**−0.25**0.35**−0.08−0.25**0.36**0.47**0.15**0.100.43**
13. Relational exclusivity0.240.230.16**−0.37**0.09−0.25**−0.16**0.30**−0.10−0.030.45**−0.40**−0.04*−0.18**

Effect of relational exclusivity on patient referral to hospitals with better care quality.

Linear regression models with two-dimensional clustering of standard errors
Model 1Model 2Model 3
Beds in focal hospital−0.02** (0.004)−0.02** (0.003)−0.01** (0.003)
Average beds in referral partner hospitals−0.004* (0.002)−0.003 (0.002)−0.004* (0.002)
Occupancy rate−5.42** (1.86)−3.82* (1.57)−4.11* (1.71)
Average weighted distance to partners (km)−0.01 (0.02)−0.01 (0.02)−0.01 (0.02)
Private hospital0.31 (0.90)0.17 (0.85)−0.23 (0.83)
Case mix index−1.66** (0.58)−2.74** (0.72)−2.73** (0.70)
Comparative performance index2.19 (1.61)5.04** (1.91)5.02* (2.00)
Referral patients sent in year<0.01 (<0.01)<0.01 (<0.01)<0.01 (<0.01)
Referral patients received in year0.02** (<0.01)0.02** (<0.01)0.01** (<0.01)
Risk-standardized readmission rate−37.75** (13.93)−34.66* (16.45)−34.31* (16.08)
Clinical complementarity with partners≤0.01 (2.73)−8.95** (3.33)
Relational exclusivity15.18** (4.26)5.37 (4.20)
Clinical complementarity with partners × Relational exclusivity42.58** (14.05)
N390390390
R20.500.540.58
LR χ2 (relative to previous model)36.70**28.95**
eISSN:
0226-1766
Sprache:
Englisch
Zeitrahmen der Veröffentlichung:
Volume Open
Fachgebiete der Zeitschrift:
Sozialwissenschaften, andere