Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1989 14(1):115-167; DOI:10.1215/03616878-14-1-115
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sloan, F. A.
Right arrow Articles by Doyle, M. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Duke University Press

Is There a Rationale for Regionalizing Organ Transplantation Services?

Frank A. Sloan, May W. Shayne and Marilyn D. Doyle
Vanderbilt University

This paper explores issues in the designation of centers to provide organ transplantation procedures and aftercare, a decision faced increasingly by policymakers, planners, and payers. As background for consideration of the regionalization of organ transplantation services, an array of models of regionalization of health services, ranging from full-scale vertical integration to market-enhancing information provision, is described. In the United States, regionalization has mainly followed the designation model within the certificate-of-need system; vertical integration has been adopted only in limited ways. Next, the authors' review of current approaches to the regionalization of organ transplantation centers by public and private payers indicates that designation of centers is increasing, although the empirical evidence concerning the classes of hospitals upon which designation decisions rest is weak. The authors then review the literature on the relationship between volumes and outcomes on surgical services with particular reference to organ transplantation, which on the whole suggests that a relationship between volumes and outcomes exists. Original empirical analysis of data on kidney transplants that were secured from the Health Care Financing Administration is then presented. The study of the effects of hospital and surgeon volumes on graft and patient survival and of the effect of volume on charges found no systematic influence of hospital or surgeon volumes on graft or patient survival. Some evidence that charges are lower for larger centers was found. The authors conclude that the evidence implies that using volume as the provider characteristic upon which to base designation of transplantation centers is problematic, at least for kidney transplants. Steps policymakers might take to ensure quality of transplantation services is discussed in the final section.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
R. Schwindt and A. Vining
Proposal for a Mutual Insurance Pool for Transplant Organs
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1998; 23(5): 725 - 741.
[Abstract] [PDF]




  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 1989 by Duke University Press