Social Interaction in Patients’ Hospital Choice: Evidence from Italy

Abstract

Summary. We study the influence of social interaction on patients’ choice of hospital and its relationship with the quality that is delivered by hospitals, using Italian data. We explore the effect on individual choices of a set of variables such as travel distance and individual‐ and hospital‐specific characteristics, as well as a variable capturing the effect of the neighbourhood. The richness of our data allows us to disentangle the influence of sharing information (the network) on patients’ choices of hospital from contextual effects. Our empirical investigation suggests that past experience in the utilization of health services by the network plays a significant role in explaining current patients’ choices of hospital. Other relevant factors that influence patients’ decisions of being admitted in a particular hospital are prior use of health services in that hospital, patient‐to‐hospital distance and supply factors such as the number of beds and number of doctors. We then investigate the relationship between a set of health outcome indicators and the sensitivity of patients’ choices to the network, to test whether sharing information increases the likelihood of selecting a high quality hospital. Our results suggest that social interaction does not have an influence on health outcomes, and in some cases it may even mislead patients, who end up in low quality institutions. One explanation for this result is the absence of a source of information on the quality of hospitals that is accessible to all individuals, such as guidelines or star ratings, which may exacerbate the influence of information that is gathered locally on choices of hospital and may result in a lower degree of competition between hospitals and lower quality.

Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?

“…Sivey, 2008, Beckert et al, 2012, Moscone et al, 2012, Gaynor et al, 2012, McConnell et al, 2016), readmission rates (McConnell et al, 2016, Moscone et al, 2012, Varkevisser et al, 2012), or hospital reputation and composite scores (Bundorf et al, 2009, Pope, 2009, Ruwaard, Douven, 2014, Varkevisser et al, 2010, Varkevisser et al, 2012). 1 See Brekke et al.…”

Hospital treatment rates and spillover effects: Does ownership matter?

“…On the demand side, Jung, Feldman, and Scanlon (2011) find that hospitals with better reputation and higher quality of health care tend to increase patients' willingness to revisit. Moscone, Tosetti, and Vittadini (2012) suggest that information from neighbors along with patients' previous experience and hospital characteristics play important roles in their choice of hospitals in Italy. Porell and Adams (1995) survey the literature and report that patients are more likely to choose hospitals with better health outcomes.…”

Free to Choose? Reform, Choice, and Consideration Sets in the English National Health Service

“…We observe a change in the way consideration sets are formed due to the reform, but as the precise choice sets being offered are not observed we have to infer the constraining process from the 3 Luft et al (1990), Tay (2003), andHoward (2005) are examples of demand estimation for the US. Sivey (2008), Beckert, Christensen andCollyer (2012), Varkevisser, van der Geest andSchut (2012), and Moscone, Tosetti and Vittadini (2012) are examples for Europe. Capps, Dranove and Satterthwaite (2003), Gaynor and Vogt (2003), and Gowrisankaran, Nevo and Town (2015) are examples of choice estimation within the context of models of hospital competition.…”