Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content

Table 2 Logistic Estimation Results

From: What drives different treatment choices? Investigation of hospital ownership, system membership and competition

 

I

II

III

IV

Not-for-profit

0.012 (0.041)

0.008 (0.041)

−0.090 (0.085)

−0.094 (0.089)

Government

0.163** (0.081)

0.152* (0.081)

−0.111 (0.108)

−0.113 (0.113)

Uninsured

 

−0.204*** (0.029)

 

−0.265 (0.224)

Not-for-profit*Uninsured

 

0.092*** (0.034)

 

0.156 (0.226)

Government*Uninsured

 

0.219*** (0.056)

 

0.165 (0.231)

System

  

−0.157* (0.087)

−0.158* (0.091)

System*Uninsured

   

0.072 (0.225)

System*Not-for-profit

  

0.081 (0.092)

0.082 (0.096)

System*Government

  

0.438*** (0.167)

0.437** (0.172)

System*Not-for-profit*Uninsured

   

−0.073 (0.228)

System*Government*Uninsured

   

−0.010 (0.236)

Number of observations

77,606,823

77,606,823

77,606,823

77,606,823

  1. Notes. Year and state fixed effects, age category indicators, weighted charlson indices, female and race indicators, bed size categories, number of nurses per bed, teaching and metropolitan indicators and target ccs DRG interaction indicators are included as controls in the regressions. Heteroscedasticity robust standard errors clustered at the hospital level are reported in parentheses. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1
Back to article page

Health Economics Review

ISSN: 2191-1991

Contact us