当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Antitrust Enforcement › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
System-wide health-care shocks and regulatory interventions in the face of the emergency: are there some lessons to be learned from the COVID-19 crisis?
Journal of Antitrust Enforcement Pub Date : 2020-06-09 , DOI: 10.1093/jaenfo/jnaa021
Alberto Heimler

We all know that competition benefits consumers because it helps contain costs, improve quality, and encourage innovation. However, this statement is true only if some hypotheses are satisfied: consumers should be able to knowingly choose between alternatives, prices should be good indicators of relative quality, and suppliers that systematically do not cover their costs leave the market (or at least are forced to restructure). Furthermore, new entry has to be easy and suppliers should face an incentive to innovate, including organizational innovation. Finally competition is the right mechanism when the quantity supplied responds to prices and only indirectly to needs. The problem with health care is that most of these characteristics are absent: consumers often lack the necessary information to choose, especially for the most expensive and infrequent services, relatively higher prices are not necessarily a signal of better care, market participants are often funded by government and their presence in the market is seldom related to relative performance. Furthermore, in health care, new entry is often not an economic decision but it is based on perceived needs. For all these reasons health care markets have been traditionally isolated from the discipline that competition provides. Only recently, competition has become a positive force for achieving productive and allocative efficiencies in health care. There are many areas where competition has proved to be beneficial in health care, and in the OECD Working Group on Competition and Regulation we have

中文翻译:

面对紧急情况,全系统的医疗保健冲击和监管干预:是否可以从 COVID-19 危机中吸取一些教训?

我们都知道竞争有利于消费者,因为它有助于控制成本、提高质量和鼓励创新。然而,这种说法只有在满足某些假设的情况下才是正确的:消费者应该能够有意识地在替代品之间进行选择,价格应该是相对质量的良好指标,并且系统地不支付其成本的供应商离开市场(或至少被迫重组)。此外,新进入必须容易,供应商应面临创新的激励,包括组织创新。最后,当供应量对价格作出反应并且仅间接地对需求作出反应时,竞争才是正确的机制。医疗保健的问题在于缺乏这些特征:消费者往往缺乏必要的信息来选择,特别是对于最昂贵和不频繁的服务,相对较高的价格并不一定是更好的护理的信号,市场参与者通常由政府资助,他们在市场上的存在很少与相对表现相关。此外,在医疗保健领域,新进入通常不是经济决策,而是基于感知需求。由于所有这些原因,医疗保健市场传统上与竞争提供的学科隔离开来。直到最近,竞争才成为实现医疗保健生产和分配效率的积极力量。事实证明,在许多领域竞争对医疗保健是有益的,在 OECD 竞争和监管工作组中,我们有 市场参与者通常由政府资助,他们在市场上的存在与相对表现很少相关。此外,在医疗保健领域,新进入通常不是经济决策,而是基于感知需求。由于所有这些原因,医疗保健市场传统上与竞争提供的学科隔离开来。直到最近,竞争才成为实现医疗保健生产和分配效率的积极力量。事实证明,在许多领域竞争对医疗保健是有益的,在 OECD 竞争和监管工作组中,我们有 市场参与者通常由政府资助,他们在市场上的存在与相对表现很少相关。此外,在医疗保健领域,新进入通常不是经济决策,而是基于感知需求。由于所有这些原因,医疗保健市场传统上与竞争提供的学科隔离开来。直到最近,竞争才成为实现医疗保健生产和分配效率的积极力量。事实证明,在许多领域竞争对医疗保健是有益的,在 OECD 竞争和监管工作组中,我们有 由于所有这些原因,医疗保健市场传统上与竞争提供的学科隔离开来。直到最近,竞争才成为实现医疗保健生产和分配效率的积极力量。事实证明,在许多领域竞争对医疗保健是有益的,在 OECD 竞争和监管工作组中,我们有 由于所有这些原因,医疗保健市场传统上与竞争提供的学科隔离开来。直到最近,竞争才成为实现医疗保健生产和分配效率的积极力量。事实证明,在许多领域竞争对医疗保健是有益的,在 OECD 竞争和监管工作组中,我们有
更新日期:2020-06-09
down
wechat
bug