EVEN IF ONE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF NETWORK MONOPSONY POWER, AND EVEN IF IN ADDITION ONE BELIEVES THAT THE US NETWORKS ARE LARGELY UNABLE TO COOPERATE IN SETTING QUALITY LEVELS AND ADVERTISING PRICES, THERE STILL REMAINS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN OVER THEIR FEWNESS. AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE STRUCTURE OF NETWORKS POLICIES TO PREVENT PERVERSE MARKET POWER.
STUDY QUESTIONS: To determine factors that distinguish effective rural hospital consortia from ineffective ones in terms of their ability to improve members' financial performance. Two questions in particular were addressed: (1) Do large consortia have a greater collective impact on their members? (2) Does a consortium's economic environment determine the degree of collective impact on members? DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Based on the hospital survey conducted during February 1992 by the Robert Wood Johnson Hospital-Based Rural Health Care project of rural hospital consortia. The survey data were augmented with data from Medicare Cost Reports (1985-1991), AHA Annual Surveys (1985-1991), and other secondary data. STUDY DESIGN: Dependent variables were total operating profit, cost per adjusted admission, and revenue per adjusted admission. Control variables included degree of group formalization, degree of inequality of resources among members (group asymmetry), affiliation with other consortium group(s), individual economic environment, common hospital characteristics (bed size, ownership type, system affiliation, case mix, etc.), year (1985-1991), and census region dummies. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: All dependent variables have a curvilinear association with group size. The optimum group size is somewhere in the neighborhood of 45. This reveals the benefits of collective action (i.e., scale economies and/or synergy effects) and the issue of complexity as group size increases. Across analyses, no strong evidence exists of group economic environment impacts, and the environmental influences come mainly from the local economy rather than from the group economy. CONCLUSION: There may be some success stories of collaboration among hospitals in consortia, and consortium effects vary across different collaborations. RELEVANCE/IMPACT: When studying consortia, it makes sense to develop a typology of groups based on some performance indicators. The results of this study imply that government, rural communities, and ...
AbstractObjectiveThis paper assesses stress disparities among marginalized parents in 2020–21 during the COVID‐19 pandemic through the mechanism of healthcare discrimination.BackgroundThe pandemic upended the lives of American families and had particularly stark mental health consequences for women, racial and ethnic minority (REM), and sexual and gender minority (SGM) parents. Scholars have been called to understand these unequal experiences via marginalizing mechanisms rather than using race, gender, and sexual identities as proxies for racism, sexism, and cis‐heterosexism.MethodsStructural equation modeling was used to test associations between marginalized identities and parental stress about COVID among partnered parents using healthcare discrimination, a marginalizing mechanism, as a mediator. The data come from The National Couples' Health and Time Study, a population‐representative study of couples in the United States.ResultsFindings indicate that compared to nonmarginalized parents, Black parents, women, transgender and nonbinary parents, and gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents experienced higher levels of parental stress about COVID through heightened healthcare discrimination. When accounting for healthcare discrimination, only one marginalized identity–that of women–was directly associated with parental stress about COVID along with the indirect relationship through healthcare discrimination.ConclusionThese findings highlight healthcare discrimination as a process that puts marginalized parents at risk for heightened stress. Parental stress has the potential to accumulate across the life course and crossover to children and communities.