Do expert patients get better treatment than others? Agency discrimination and statistical discrimination in obstetrics

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 163-180

  Grytten, Jostein ^a,b   Skau, Irene ^a   Sørensen, Rune ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c BI NORWEGIAN BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Norway)

Author keywords

Agency theory; Caesarean section; Disparities; Expert patients; Statistical discrimination

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH WORKER; HOSPITAL SECTOR; MATERNAL HEALTH; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIRTH WEIGHT; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DISEASE PREDISPOSITION; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE DISPARITY; HEALTH SERVICE; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL EXPERT; MIDWIFE; NORWAY; OBSTETRIC CARE; OBSTETRICS; PHYSICIAN; PREECLAMPSIA;

CESAREAN SECTION; COMMUNICATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES; HOSPITAL COSTS; HUMANS; MIDWIFERY; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NORWAY; OBSTETRICS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PHYSICIANS; PREGNANCY; PREJUDICE;

EID: 79951721002     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Aigner D.J., Cain G.G. Statistical theories of discrimination in labor markets. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 1977, 30:175-187.
2. Al-Mufti R., McCarthy A., Fisk N.M. Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practice. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology 1997, 73:1-4.
3. Amer-Wahlin I., Arulkumaran S., Hagberg H., Marsál K., Visser G.H.A. Fetal electrocardiogram: ST waveform analysis in intrapartum surveillance. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2007, 114:1191-1193.
4. Arima Y., Guthrie B.L., Rhew I.C., De Roos A.J. The impact of the First Steps prenatal care program on birth outcomes among women receiving Medicaid in Washington State. Health Policy 2009, 92:49-54.
5. Backe B. Overutilization of antenatal care in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 2001, 29:129-132.
6. Bailit J.L., Love T.E., Mercer B. Rising cesarean rates: are patients sicker?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004, 191:800-803.
7. Balsa A.I., McGuire T.G. Statistical discrimination in health care. Journal of Health Economics 2001, 20:881-907.
8. Balsa A.I., McGuire T.G. Prejudice, clinical uncertainty and stereotyping as sources of health disparities. Journal of Health Economics 2003, 22:89-116.
9. Balsa A.I., McGuire T.G., Meredith L.S. Testing for statistical discrimination in health care. Health Services Research 2005, 40:227-252.
10. Bergsjø P. Keisersnitt gjennom 40 år Overvåking ved hjelp av Medisinsk fødselsregister. Norsk epidemiologi 2007, 17:185-190.
11. Blondel B., Pusch D., Schmidt E. Some characteristics of antenatal care in 13 European countries. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1985, 92:565-568.
12. Brown H.S. Lawsuit activity, defensive medicine, and small area variation: the case of cesarean sections revisited. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2007, 2:285-296.
13. Carroli G., Villar J., Piaggio G., Khan-Neelofur D., Gülmezoglu M., Mugford M., Lumbiganon P., Farnot U., Bergsjø P. WHO systematic review of randomised controlled trials of routine antenatal care. The Lancet 2001, 357:1565-1570.
14. Currie J., Gruber J. Saving babies: the efficacy and cost of recent changes in the Medicaid eligibility of pregnant women. Journal of Political Economy 1996, 104:1263-1296.
15. Dalen, D.M., Grytten, J., Rune Sørensen, R.J., 2002. Mer penger eller mer for pengene? Organisering og finansiering av norske sykehus. Research Report 16/2002. Handelshøykolen BI, Sandvika.
16. Delvaux T., Buekens P. Disparity in prenatal care in Europe. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1999, 83:185-190. the Study group on barriers, incentives to prenatal care in Europe.
17. Deneux-Tharaux C., Carmona E., Bouvier-Colle M.H., Bréart G. Postpartum maternal mortality and cesarean delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2006, 108:541-548.
18. Ecker J.L., Frigoletto F.D. Cesarean delivery and the risk-benefit calculus. The New England Journal of Medicine 2007, 356:885-888.
19. Eikeland, T., Haugeberg., B., Henriksen, T., Hjelle, S., Yli, B.M., Blix, E., Øyan, P., 2008. Veileder i fødselshjelp 2008, kapittel 22. Overvaking under fødsel (CTG, føtale blodprøvar, CTG+ST-analyse av foster-EKG), (30.04.2010). http://www.legeforeningen.no./id/148399.0.
20. Emanuel I., Alberman H.F.E., Evans S.J.W. Intergenerational studies of human birthweight from the 1958 birth cohort. 1. Evidence for a multigenerational effect. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1992, 99:67-74.
21. Epstein A.J., Nicholson S. The formation and evolution of physician treatment styles: an application to cesarean sections. Journal of Health Economics 2009, 28:1126-1140.
22. Fuglenes D., Øian P., Kristiansen I.S. Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2009, 200:48.e1-48.e8.
23. Gabbe G.S., Holzman G.B. Obstetricians' choice of delivery. Lancet 2001, 357:722.
24. Gamble J.A., Creedy D.K. Women's request for a cesarean section: a critique of the literature. Birth 2000, 27:256-263.
25. Gamble J., Creedy D.K., McCourt C., Weaver J., Beake S. A critique of the literature on women's request for cesarean section. Birth 2007, 34:331-340.
26. Gazmararian J.A., Koplan J.P. Economic aspects of the perinatal hospital stay. Clinics in Perinatology 1998, 483-498.
27. Grant D. Physician financial incentives and cesarean delivery: new conclusions from the healthcare cost and utilization project. Journal of Health Economics 2009, 28:244-250.
28. Gregory K.D., Korst L.M., Gornbein J.A., Platt L.D. Using administrative data to identify indications for elective primary cesarean delivery. Health Services Research 2002, 37:1387-1401.
29. Gruber J., Owings M. Physician financial incentives and cesarean section delivery. The Rand Journal of Economics 1996, 27:99-123.
30. Gruber J., Kim J., Mayzlin D. Physician fees and procedure intensity: the case of cesarean delivery. Journal of Health Economics 1999, 18:473-490.
31. Habiba M., Kaminski M., Da Frè M., Marsal K., Bleker O., Librero J., Grandjean H., Gratia P., Guaschino S., Heyl W., Taylor D., Cuttini M. Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2006, 113:647-656.
32. Hagen T. Agenda setting power and moral hazard in principal-agent relationships: evidence from hospital budgeting in Norway. European Journal of Political Research 1997, 31:287-314.
33. Häger R.M.E., Daltveit A.K., Hofoss D., Nilsen S.T., Kolaas T., Øian P., Henriksen T. Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004, 190:428-434.
34. Hall M.H., Bewley S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. The Lancet 1999, 354:776.
35. Heimstad R., Dahloe R., Laache I., Skogvoll E., Schei B. Fear of childbirth and history of abuse: implications for pregnancy and delivery. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2006, 85:435-440.
36. Henderson J., McCandlish R., Kumiega L., Petrou S. Systematic review of economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2001, 108:149-157.
37. Henry O.A., Gregory K.D., Hobel C.J., Platt L.D. Using ICD-9 codes to identify indications for primary and repeat cesarean sections: agreement with clinical records. American Journal of Public Health 1995, 85:1143-1146.
38. Hildingsson I., Rådestad I., Robertsson C., Waldenström U. Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002, 109:618-623.
39. Holmboe J., Molne K. Tilsynssaker knyttet til svangerskap og fødsel. The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 2001, 121:3185-3187.
40. Irgens L.M. The Medical Birth Registry of Norway Epidemiological research and surveillance throughout 30 years. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2000, 79:435-439.
41. Jackson N., Paterson-Brown S. Physical sequelae of caesarean section. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2001, 15:49-61.
42. Jørstad R.G., Thomsen M.W., Foyn T., Hagen B., Øian P., Eraker R. Norsk Pasientskaderstatning - en kilde til læring. The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 2007, 127:760-762.
43. Keeler E.B., Brodie M. Economic incentives in the choice between vaginal delivery and cesarean section. The Milbank Quarterly 1993, 71:365-404.
44. Kolås T., Hofoss D., Daltveit A.K., Nilsen S.T., Henriksen T., Häger R., Ingemarsson I., Øian P. Indications for cesarean deliveries in Norway. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003, 188:864-870.
45. Köber T.M. Registerbasert sysselsettingsstatistikk for helse- og sosialpersonell 2004, Statistics Norway, Oslo.
46. Kramer M.S. Determinants of low birth weight: methodological assessment and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 1987, 65:663-737.
47. Kramer M.S., Séguin L., Lydon J., Goulet L. Socio-economic disparities in pregnancy outcome: why do the poor fare so poorly?. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2000, 14:194-210.
48. Land R., Parry E., Rane A., Wilson D. Personal preferences of obstetricians towards childbirth. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2001, 41:249-252.
49. Lappegård, T., 1999. Akademikere får også barn, bare senere. Samfunnsspeilet 5/99. (30.04.2010). http://www.ssb.no/samfunnsspeilet/utg/9905/2.shtml.
50. Lavender T., Hofmeyer G.J., Neilson J.P., Kingdom C., Gyte G.M.L. Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, (3). Art. No. CD004660. 10.1002/14651858.CD004660.pub2.
51. Leitch C.R., Walker J.J. The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1998, 105:621-626.
52. Lehmann S., Børdahl P.E., Rasmussen S.A. Norwegain midwives and doctors have increased cesarean section rates. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2007, 86:1087-1089.
53. Leone T., Padmadas S.S., Matthews Z. Community factors affecting rising caesarean section rates in developing countries: an analysis of six countries. Social Science and Medicine 2008, 67:1236-1246.
54. Lin H.C., Xirasagar S., Kao K. Association of hospital ownership with patient transfers to outpatient care under a prospective payment system in Taiwan. Health Policy 2004, 69:11-19.
55. Lin H.C., Xirasagar S. Institutional factors in cesarean delivery rates: policy and research implications. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004, 103:128-136.
56. Liu T.C., Chen C.S., Tsai Y.W., Lin H.C. Taiwan's high rate of cesarean births: impact of National Health Insurance and fetal gender preference. Birth 2007, 34:115-122.
57. Lutfey K.E., Ketcham J.D. Patient and provider assessments of adherence and the sources of disparities: evidence from diabetes care. Health Services Research 2005, 40:1803-1817.
58. Luzietti R., Erkkola R., Hasbargen U., Mattson L.Å., Thoulon J.M., Rosén K.G. European community multi-center trial "fetal ECG analysis during labor": ST plus CTG analysis. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 1999, 27:431-440.
59. MacDorman M.F., Menacker F., Declerq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends and outcomes. Clinics in Perinatology 2008, 35:293-307.
60. Marx H., Wiener J., Davies N. A survey of the influence of patients' choice on the increase in the caesarean section rate. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2001, 21:124-127.
61. Mathisen A.B-W., Vaaler S., Dramstad E., Åbyholm T. Risikofødende, kostnader og DRG-refusjon. The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 2002, 122:503-506.
62. Mayor S. Caesarean section rate in England reaches 22%. British Medical Journal 2002, 324:1118.
63. McCourt C., Weaver J., Statham H., Beake S., Gamble J., Creedy D.K. Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth 2007, 31:65-79.
64. McGuire T.G., Ayanian J.Z., Ford D.E., Henke R.E.M., Rost K.M., Zaslavsky A.M. Testing for statistical discrimination by race/ethnicity in panel data for depression treatment in primary care. Health Services Research 2008, 43:531-551.
65. Miller C.A. Maternal and infant care: comparisons between Western Europe and the United States. International Journal of Health Services 1993, 23:655-664.
66. Ministry of Health Behovsbasert finansiering av spesialisthelsetjenesten. Oslo. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, 2007. Intrapartum care. Care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. Clinical Guideline 2002, RCOG Press, London, pp. 225-228.
67. Nerland S.M. Kurpengeordningen før 1980 - den glemte finansieringsordningen. The Journal of the Norwegaian Medical Association 2001, 121:2983-2985.
68. Nerum H., Halvorsen L., Sørlie T., Øian P. Maternal request for Cesarean section due to fear of birth: can it be changed through crisis-oriented counseling?. Birth 2006, 33:221-228.
69. Nilsen S.T:, Daltveit A.K., Irgens L.M. Fødeinstitusjoner og fødsler i Norge i 1990-årene. The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 2001, 121:3208-3212.
70. Norwegian Institute of Public Health Hvorfor øker keisersnitt i Norge? 2007, (30.04.2010). http://www.fhi.no/artikler%3Fid=52713.
71. Norwegian Institute of Public Health Keisersnitt - faktaark 2008, (30.04.2010). http://www.fhi.no/artikler%3Fid=52705.
72. Norwegian Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics Veileder i fødselshjelp 2008 2008, (30.04.2010). http://www.legeforeningen.no/id/131068.0.
73. Notzon F.C., Cnattingius S., Bergsjø P., Cole S., Taffel S., Irgens L., Daltveit A.K. Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: international comparison by indication. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994, 170:495-504.
74. Odlind V., Haglund B., Pakkanen M., Olausson P.O. Deliveries, mothers and newborn infants in Sweden, 1973-2000 trends in obstetrics as reported to the Swedish Medical Birth Register. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2003, 82:516-528.
75. Olds D.L., Henderson C.R., Tatelbaum R., Chamberlin R. Improving the delivery of prenatal care and outcomes of pregnancy: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics 1986, 77:16-28.
76. O'Leary C.M., de Klerk N., Keogh J., Pennell C., de Groot J., York L., Mulroy S., Stanley F.J. Trends in the mode of delivery during 1984-2003: can they be explained by pregnancy and delivery complications?. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2007, 114:855-864.
77. Ransom S.B., McNeeley S.G., Kruger M.L., Doot G., Cotton D.B. The effect of capitated and fee-for-service remuneration on physician decision making in gynecology. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996, 87:707-710.
78. Rooth G., Huch A., Huch R. FIGO News. Guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 1987, 25:159-167.
79. Rosén K.G., Amer-Wåhlin I., Luzietti R., Norén H. Fetal ECG waveform analysis. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2004, 18:485-514.
80. Saisto T., Halmesmäki E. Fear of childbirth: a neglected dilemma. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2003, 82:201-208.
81. Savage W., Francome C. British consultants' attitudes to caesareans. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2007, 27:354-359.
82. Stafford R.S. Cesarean section use and source of payment: an analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts. American Journal of Public Health 1990, 80:313-315.
83. Statistics Norway Norwegian Standard Classification of Education Revised 2000 2000, Statistics Norway, Oslo-Kongsvinger.
84. Statistics Norway StatBank Norway, 02 Population, Table 05184 Immigrants by Sex and Country Background 2009, (30.04.2010). http://statbank.ssb.no//statistikkbanken/default_fr.asp%3FPLanguage=1.
85. Stephenson P.A., Bakoula C., Hemminki E., Knudsen L., Levasseur M., Schenker J., Stembera Z., Tiba J., Verbrugge H.P., Zupan J., Wagner M.G., Karagas M., Pizacani B., Pineault R., Tuimala R., Houd S., Lomas J. Patterns of use of obstetrical interventions in 12 countries. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 1993, 7:45-54.
86. Stewart M.A. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes-a review. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1995, 152:1423-1433.
87. Symon A. Litigation and defensive clinical practice: quantifying the problem. Midwifery 2000, 16:8-14.
88. The Norwegian System of Compensation to Patients Fødselssaker 2008, (30.04.2010). http://www.npe.no/.
89. Tollånes M.C., Thompson J., Daltveit A.K. Cesarean section and maternal education; secular trends in Norway, 1967-2004. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2007, 86:840-848.
90. Tollånes M.C. Økt forekomst av keisersnitt - årsaker og konsekvenser. The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 2009, 129:1329-1331.
91. Tussing A.D., Wojtowycz M.A. The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986 Economic and noneconomic aspects. Medical Care 1992, 30:529-540.
92. Tussing A.D., Wojtowycz M.A. Malpractice, defensive medicine, and obstetric behavior. Medical Care 1997, 35:172-191.
93. Van Geijn H.P. Cardiotocography. Textbook of Perinatal Medicine 1998, vol. 2:1424-1428. Parthenon Publishing, London.
94. Vangen S., Stoltenberg C., Skrondal A., Magnus P., Stray-Pedersen B. Cesarean section among immigrants in Norway. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2000, 79:553-558.
95. Villar J., Bakketeig L., Donner A., Al-Mazrou Y., Ba'aqeel H., Belizán J.M., Carroli G., Farnot U., Lumbiganon P., Piaggio G., Berendes H. The WHO antenatal care randomised controlled trial: rationale and study design. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 1998, 12(Suppl. 2):27-58.
96. Wagner M. Choosing caesarean section. The Lancet 2000, 356:1677-1680.
97. Weaver J.J., Statham H., Richards M. Are there "unnecessary" cesarean sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth 2007, 34:32-41.
98. Williams B., Arulkumaran S. Cardiotocography and medicolegal issues. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2004, 18:457-466.
99. Young D. "Cesarean delivery on maternal request": was the NIH conference based on a faulty premise?. Birth 2006, 33:171-174.