Reasons for merging and collaborating in healthcare: Marriage or living apart together?

BACKGROUND: Across OECD countries, integration between healthcare organisations has become an indispensable part of contemporary healthcare provision. In recent years, inter-organisational collaboration has increasingly been encouraged in health and competition policy at the expense of mergers. Yet, understanding of whether healthcare organisations make an active choice between merging and collaborating is lacking. Hence, this study systematically examines (i) healthcare executives' motives for integration, (ii) their potential trade-offs between collaborating or merging, and (iii) the barriers to collaborating perceived by them. METHODS: Early 2019, an online questionnaire was conducted among a nationwide panel of 714 healthcare executives in the Netherlands. Because of their strategic position within healthcare organisations as end-responsible managers, healthcare executives are especially suited to provide broad and in-depth knowledge on the internal and external processes and decisions. Three hundred thirty-seven Dutch healthcare executives completed the questionnaire (response rate 47%). This study sample was representative of the largest healthcare sectors in the Netherlands. In total, 137 mergers and 235 inter-organisational collaborations were reported. Both closed questions and open-ended questions were systematically analysed. RESULTS: Improving or broadening healthcare provision is the foremost motive for mergers as well as inter-organisational collaborations. When considering both types, reducing governance complexity is one of the decisive reasons to opt for a merger, whereas aversion towards a full merger and lack of support base within the own organisation convinced healthcare executives to choose for a collaboration. When comparing specific healthcare sectors, the overlap in pursued motives and sub-motives indicates that inter-organisational collaborations and mergers are used for comparable objectives. Only a small minority of the responding executives switched between both types of integration. Institutional barriers, such as laws, regulations and financing regimes, appear to be the most restricting for healthcare executives to engage in inter-organisational collaborations. CONCLUSIONS: Our integral approach and systematic comparison across sectors could serve policymakers, regulators and healthcare providers in aligning organisational objectives and societal objectives in decision-making on collaborations and mergers. Future research is recommended to study multiple collaboration and merger cases qualitatively for a detailed examination of decision-making by healthcare executives, and develop an integral assessment framework for balancing collaborations and mergers based on their effects in the medium to long term.

Price effects of a hospital merger: Heterogeneity across health insurers, hospital products, and hospital locations.

In most studies on hospital merger effects, the unit of observation is the merged hospital, whereas the observed price is the weighted average across hospital products and across payers. However, little is known about whether price effects vary between hospital locations, products, and payers. We expand existing bargaining models to allow for heterogeneous price effects and use a difference-in-differences model in which price changes at the merging hospitals are compared with price changes at comparison hospitals. We find evidence of heterogeneous price effects across health insurers, hospital products and hospital locations. These findings have implications for ex ante merger scrutiny.

Getting cold feet?: Why health care mergers are abandoned.

BACKGROUND: Despite the frequent occurrence and sizeable consequences of merger abandonment in other sectors, there is no thorough understanding of merger abandonment in health care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to improve the understanding of determinants of health care merger abandonment. APPROACH: On the basis of the literature on merger abandonment, we formulated a framework on potential determinants of health care merger abandonment. We then constructed a survey that was sent to 70% of all executives of Dutch health care organizations (response rate = 35%, n = 291). We provide descriptive overviews of open, multiple-response, and multiple-choice questions on merger abandonment and use chi-square tests and Fisher's exact tests to test whether abandoned and completed merger processes differ. FINDINGS: About 62% of the respondents were involved in at least one merger process during the period of 2005-2012. Thirty-eight percent of these respondents reported that their last merger case ended prematurely (n = 53). The most frequently mentioned determinants of merger abandonment are changing insights on the desirability and feasibility during merger processes, incompatibilities between executives, and insufficient support for the merger from internal stakeholders. We did not find significant relationships between merger abandonment and executives' previous merger experience, degree of organizational diversification, health care sector, size differences, or other organizational differences. DISCUSSION: Our findings partially confirm results from previous studies, especially with regard to the importance of changing insights and incompatibilities between the involved executives in merger abandonment. We also find that pressure from internal stakeholders, particularly nonexecutive directors, and distrust, fear, and animosity play an important role in merger abandonment. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To minimize the organizational and societal costs of abandoned mergers, we advise executives who engage in mergers to construct backup plans with alternative strategies in case the merger is abandoned and to conduct a thorough analysis of pros and cons before the merger.

Inter-organizational collaboration between healthcare providers.

Across OECD countries, healthcare organizations increasingly rely on inter-organizational collaboration (IOC). Yet, systematic insight into the relations across different healthcare sectors is lacking. The aim of this explorative study is twofold. First, to understand how IOC differs across healthcare sectors with regards to characteristics, motives and the role of health policy. Second, to understand which potential effects healthcare executives consider prior to the establishment of the collaborations. For this purpose, a survey was conducted among a representative panel of Dutch healthcare executives from medium-sized or large healthcare organizations. Almost half (n = 344, 48%) of the invited executives participated. Our results suggest that differences in policy changes and institutional developments across healthcare sectors affect the scope and type of IOC: hospitals generally operate in small horizontal collaborations, while larger and more complex mixed and non-horizontal collaborations are more present among nursing homes, disability care and mental care organizations. We find that before establishing IOCs, most healthcare executives conduct a self-assessment including the potential effects of the collaboration. The extensive overview of policy developments, collaboration types and intended outcomes presented in our study offers a useful starting point for a more in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of collaborations among healthcare organizations.

Does price deregulation in a competitive hospital market damage quality?

Regulators may be hesitant to permit price competition in healthcare markets because of its potential to damage quality. We assess whether this fear is well founded by examining a reform that permitted Dutch health insurers to freely negotiate prices with hospitals. Unlike previous research on hospital competition that has relied on quality indicators for urgent treatments, we take advantage of a plausible absence of selection bias to identify the effect on the quality of elective procedures that should be more price responsive. Using data on all admissions for hip replacements to Dutch hospitals and a difference-in-differences comparison between more and less concentrated markets, we find no evidence that price deregulation in a competitive environment reduces quality measured by hip replacement readmission rates.

Why healthcare providers merge.

In many OECD countries, healthcare sectors have become increasingly concentrated as a result of mergers. However, detailed empirical insight into why healthcare providers merge is lacking. Also, we know little about the influence of national healthcare policies on mergers. We fill this gap in the literature by conducting a survey study on mergers among 848 Dutch healthcare executives, of which 35% responded (resulting in a study sample of 239 executives). A total of 65% of the respondents was involved in at least one merger between 2005 and 2012. During this period, Dutch healthcare providers faced a number of policy changes, including increasing competition, more pressure from purchasers, growing financial risks, de-institutionalisation of long-term care and decentralisation of healthcare services to municipalities. Our empirical study shows that healthcare providers predominantly merge to improve the provision of healthcare services and to strengthen their market position. Also efficiency and financial reasons are important drivers of merger activity in healthcare. We find that motives for merger are related to changes in health policies, in particular to the increasing pressure from competitors, insurers and municipalities.

Spillover effects of supplementary on basic health insurance: evidence from The Netherlands.

Like many other countries, the Netherlands has a health insurance system that combines mandatory basic insurance with voluntary supplementary insurance. Both types of insurance are founded on different principles. Since basic and supplementary insurance are sold by the same health insurers, both markets may interact. This paper examines to what extent basic and supplementary insurance are linked to each other and whether these links generate spillover effects of supplementary on basic insurance. Our analysis is based on an investigation into supplementary health insurance contracts, underwriting procedures and annual surveys among 1,700-2,100 respondents over the period 2006-2009. We find that health insurers increasingly use a variety of strategies to enforce a joint purchase of basic and supplementary health insurance. Despite incentives for health insurers to use supplementary insurance as a tool for risk selection in basic insurance, we find limited evidence of supplementary insurance being used this way. Only a minority of health insurers uses health questionnaires when people apply for supplementary coverage. Nevertheless, we find that an increasing proportion of high-risk individuals believe that insurers would not be willing to offer them another supplementary insurance contract. We discuss several strategies to prevent or to counteract the observed negative spillover effects of supplementary insurance.