Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 2):447-69.
doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00124.

Changes in hospital competitive strategy: a new medical arms race?

Affiliations

Changes in hospital competitive strategy: a new medical arms race?

Kelly J Devers et al. Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: To describe changes in hospitals' competitive strategies, specifically the relative emphasis placed on strategies for competing along price and nonprice (i.e., service, amenities, perceived quality) dimensions, and the reasons for any observed shifts.

Methods: This study uses data gathered through the Community Tracking Study site visits, a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of 12 U.S. communities. Research teams visited each of these communities every two years since 1996 and conducted between 50 to 90 semistructured interviews. Additional information on hospital competition and strategy was gathered from secondary data.

Principal findings: We found that hospitals' strategic emphasis changed significantly between 1996-1997 and 2000-2001. In the mid-1990s, hospitals primarily competed on price through "wholesale" strategies (i.e., providing services attractive to managed care plans). By 2000-2001, nonprice competition was becoming increasingly important and hospitals were reviving "retail" strategies (i.e., providing services attractive to individual physicians and the patients they serve). Three major factors explain this shift in hospital strategy: less than anticipated selective contracting and capitated payment; the freeing up of hospital resources previously devoted to horizontal and vertical integration strategies; and, the emergence and growth of new competitors.

Conclusion: Renewed emphasis on nonprice competition and retail strategies, and the service mimicking and one-upmanship that result, suggest that a new medical arms race is emerging. However, there are important differences between the medical arms race today and the one that occurred in the 1970s and early 1980s: the hospital market is more concentrated and price competition remains relatively important. The development of a new medical arms race has significant research and policy implications.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. American Hospital Association 1996–2000. Annual Survey of Hospitals Database, Chicago American Hospital Association.
    1. Baker LC, Spetz J. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economics Research; 1999. “Managed Care and Medical Technology Growth.”. Working paper no. 6894.
    1. Baker LC, Phibbs CS. Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2000. “Managed Care, Technology Adoption, and Health Care: The Adoption of Neonatal Intensive Care.”. Working paper no. 7883. - PubMed
    1. Baker LC, Wheeler SK. “Managed Care and Technology Diffusion: The Case of MRI.”. Health Affairs. 1998;17(5):195–207. - PubMed
    1. Bamezai A, Zwanziger J, Melnick GA, Mann JM. “Price Competition and Hospital Cost Growth in the United States (1989–1994).”. Health Economics. 1999;8(3):233–43. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms