Search

Quality disclosures regarding medical outcomes such as patient mortality are common healthcare policy instruments. Mixed evidence exists on whether quality disclosures improve outcomes for disclosed ailments. Moreover, disclosure policies can generate spillovers and impact ailments not targeted by the policy. We examine the effects of quality disclosure regulation on mortality improvements in disclosed and nondisclosed ailments. We use patient records for California hospitals for 1995–2014 and construct three groups of ailments: those that were the target of disclosure regulation, complementary ailments that were not the target of disclosure regulation but are medically related to the disclosed ailments, and medically unrelated ailments. Using a difference-in-differences design, we find that quality disclosure regulation is associated with declines in mortality risk of disclosed ailments ranging from 11.5% to 23%. Quality disclosure regulation is also associated with improvements for complementary ailments that are not the target of the disclosure policy. Such positive spillover effects yield an estimated 15.2% decline in mortality risk. Consistent with demand-side pressures driving improvements, market shares become sensitive to disclosed quality measures after disclosure regulation. Our findings of direct and spillover effects have implications for disclosure regulation. This paper was accepted by David Simchi-Levi, accounting. Supplemental Material: The data files and online appendix are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4817. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Contemporary Accounting Research is the property of Canadian Academic Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses a study which examined the effect of fixed-price regulation on cost elasticity and cost asymmetry. The effect of ownership on firms' adjustments to cost elasticity and cost asymmetry in response to price regulation is explored. Aside from examining whether the change in regulation influences cost elasticity, analyses explored the effect of a change in regulation on the asymmetric behavior cost. The data used, provided by the German Federal Statistical Office, consist of a random sample of 70 percent of the entire population of German hospitals for the years 1993-2008. Results emphasizes the necessity to distinguish between upward and downward changes in cost elasticity when examining cost behavior.

A large stream of work on relative performance evaluation highlights the benefits of using information about peer performance in contracting. In contrast, the potential costs of discouraging cooperation among peers have received much less attention. The purpose of our study is to examine how the importance of cooperation affects the use of information about peer performance in target setting, also known as relative target setting. Specifically, we use data from an industrial services company where business unit managers need to share specialized equipment and staff with their peers to manage bottlenecks in their capacity. We construct several empirical proxies for the costs and benefits of information about peer performance and examine their effects on target setting. We find robust evidence that the sensitivity of target revisions to past peer performance is higher when peer group performance has greater capacity to filter out noise but lower when the importance of cooperation among peers is greater. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]