Competition and The Operational Performance of Hospitals: The Role of Hospital Objectives
通过博弈论和排队模型，比较垄断非营利医院、双寡头非营利医院以及非营利与营利医院并存三种市场下的等待时间和患者成本，发现竞争可能损害规模经济并增加等待时间，而营利医院的存在仅在市场充分竞争时才有益。
We examine the effect of a hospital's objective (i.e., non‐profit vs. for‐profit) in hospital markets for elective care. Using game‐theoretic analysis and queueing models to capture the operational performance of hospitals, we compare the equilibrium behavior of three market settings in terms of such criteria as waiting times and patient costs from waiting and hospital payments. In the first setting, a monopoly, patients are served exclusively by a single non‐profit hospital; in the second, a homogeneous duopoly, patients are served by two competing non‐profit hospitals. In our third setting, a heterogeneous duopoly, the market is served by one non‐profit hospital and one for‐profit hospital. A non‐profit hospital provides free care to patients, although they may have to wait; for‐profit hospitals charge a fee to provide care with minimal waiting. A comparison between the monopolistic and each of the duopolistic settings reveals that the introduction of competition can hamper a hospital's ability to attain economies of scale and can also increase waiting times. Moreover, the presence of a for‐profit sector may be desirable only when the hospital market is sufficiently competitive. A comparison across the duopolistic settings indicates that the choice between homogeneous and heterogeneous competition depends on the patients' willingness to wait before receiving care and the reimbursement level of the non‐profit sector. When the public funder is not financially constrained, the presence of a for‐profit sector may allow the funder to lower both the financial costs of providing coverage and the total costs to patients. Finally, our analysis suggests that the public funder should exercise caution when using policy tools that support the for‐profit sector—for example, patient subsidies—because such tools may increase patient costs in the long run; it might be preferable to raise the non‐profit sector's level of reimbursement.