Shorenstein APARC is pleased to share that Radhika Jain, our 2019-22 Asia Health Policy Postdoctoral Fellow, is the recipient of the inaugural Adam Wagstaff Award for Outstanding Research on the Economics of Healthcare Financing and Delivery in Low- and middle-Income Countries. Hosted by the International Health Economics Association (iHEA), the award recognizes Jain’s excellent paper, "Private Hospital Behavior Under Government Health Insurance in India." She received the award on July 13 at a special session of the iHEA 2021 Congress.

Jain is a health economist working on public health policy in India. Her research focuses on the role of the private sector in the country’s health system, frictions in health care markets, socioeconomic and gender inequality, and health policy design. Her award-winning paper provides the first large-scale evidence on the behavior of private hospitals within public health insurance programs in India. In a major policy shift away from direct public provision of health care, the Indian government has been expanding health insurance programs that contract private hospitals for service delivery and pay them at fixed rates for services. Until now, however, there has been little empirical evidence on the behavior of private hospitals within these programs. 

Earlier this year, Jain presented the results of her study as part of the Asia Health Policy Program’s 2020-21 colloquium series, "Health, Medicine, and Longevity: Exploring Public and Private Roles.” Watch the conversation here:

For her research, Jain used over 1.6 million insurance claims, 20,000 patient surveys, and a policy-induced natural experiment that changed hospital reimbursement rates. Her study reveals that private hospitals in India engage in coding manipulation to increase revenues at government expense and charge patients out-of-pocket for care against program rules. As a result, almost half of all patients pay for care that should be free, and these payments constitute a 35% markup over the price the government pays. The charges decrease if reimbursement rates increase, but hospitals capture approximately half the increased reimbursements.

Jain's findings indicate that hospitals exploit market frictions and poor program enforcement to capture a substantial share of the public subsidy as profit. “In contexts of weak oversight,” she writes, “profit-motivated private agents systematically flout program rules to increase their revenues at considerable expense to the government and patients.”

She also finds, however, that hospital non-compliance partially compensates for prices set too low to meet the participation constraints of agents. Reimbursement rates, says Jain, are a significant policy lever that drives agent behavior, and simply increasing monitoring without appropriate price-setting may increase compliance but decrease service provision.

Jain’s research shows that market structure — a factor rarely taken into account in social policy design in lower-income contexts — can affect the extent to which public subsidies benefit citizens. Her findings provide broader insights into contracting the private sector for delivering health and other social services in settings with limited institutional capacity for monitoring and optimal price-setting.

On our podcast, Jain discusses her efforts to develop measures that improve how health systems serve vulnerable populations and her collaborative research with Stanford development economist Pascaline Dupas on how India's COVID-19 lockdown affected access to non-COVID-related health care and outcomes. Listen here:

The Adam Wagstaff Award honors the legacy of the late Adam Wagstaff, who was a research manager in the Development Research Group of the World Bank and former president of iHEA, and celebrates his lifelong commitment to improving healthcare financing and delivery and promoting equity in low- and middle-income countries. The award also contributes to iHEA’s efforts to promote excellence in health economics globally and advance internationalization through greater inclusion of low- and middle-income country researchers.

Congratulations, Dr. Jain, on this well-deserved honor!

Does the new wave of digital technologies portend a future in which robots and automation increasingly replace workers and destroy livelihoods? In one of the first studies of service sector robots, APARC experts find evidence to offset dystopian predictions of robot job replacement.

The researchers — Asia Health Policy Program Director Karen Eggleston, SK Center Fellow Yong Suk Lee, and University of Tokyo health economist Toshiaki Iizuka, our former visiting scholar — set out to examine how robots affect labor, productivity, and quality of care in Japan’s nursing homes. Their findings indicate that robot adoption may not be detrimental to labor and may help address the challenges of rapidly aging societies.

Eggleston recently joined the Future Health podcast, an initiative of the New South Wales Ministry of Health, to discuss the study and its implications. The program is available both as a video and audio podcast. Watch and listen below:

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive the latest updates from our scholars.

Published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the study suggests that robot adoption has increased employment opportunities for non-regular care workers, helped mitigate the turnover problem that plagues nursing homes, and provided greater flexibility for workers. It is also published in AHPP's working paper series and is part of a broader research project by Eggleston, Lee, and Iizuka, that explores the impact of robots on nursing home care in Japan and the implications of robotic technologies adoption in aging societies.

The study has attracted media attention. The Financial Times Magazine, in a feature story and podcast, called it “groundbreaking in several ways but perhaps most clearly for setting its sights not on manufacturing but on the services sector, where robots are only just beginning to make their mark.” The Freakonomics Radio podcast also hosted Eggleston and Lee for a conversation about their research as part of an episode on collaborative robots and the future of work.

Technological progress boosts productivity and has made societies wealthier, but the impact of new digital technologies could be different from anything seen before. Some experts predict a future with robots and other forms of automation increasingly replacing workers, contributing to stagnant income, and worsening inequality. Yet it is difficult to pinpoint the net impact of advanced technologies on labor. There is anecdotal evidence that robotics and automation reduce manufacturing employment and wages, but evidence from the service sector remains scant. Collaborative research by APARC experts is now starting to fill this gap.

The researchers — including Karen Eggleston, APARC deputy director and director of the Asia Health Policy Program (AHPP), Yong Suk Lee, the deputy director of the Korea Program, and University of Tokyo health economist Toshiaki Iizuka, a former AHPP visiting scholar — set out to probe the impact of robots on services provided in nursing homes in Japan. Their study, one of the first investigations of service sector robots, offers an offset to the dystopian predictions of robot job replacement.

Published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the study suggests that robot adoption has increased employment opportunities for non-regular care workers, helped mitigate the turnover problem that plagues nursing homes, and provided greater flexibility for workers. It is also published in AHPP's working paper series and is part of a broader research project by Eggleston, Lee, and Iizuka, that explores the impact of robots on nursing home care in Japan and the implications of robotic technologies adoption in aging societies.

[Subscribe to APARC's newsletters for the latest analysis from our experts.]

Japan has been on the front lines of a demographic crisis, grappling with a declining overall population, increasing proportion of seniors, and aversion to large-scale immigration. It has also been an early adopter of robots to address the shortage of care workers relative to a growing demand for long-term care services. Japan’s experience is especially instructive as more countries face aging populations, helping shed light on how demographics interact with new automation technologies.

In a VoxEU.org article, Eggleston, Lee, and Iizuka describe their study, its findings, and its implications. Examining the relationship between robot adoption and nursing home staffing in Japan, they find that robot-adopting nursing homes had between 3% and 8% more staff than their non-adopting counterparts. The increases in staffing occurred entirely among the non-regular employees. Nursing homes with robots also appeared to have higher management quality and were better able to reduce the burden on care workers. The results suggest “that the wave of technologies that inspires fear in many countries could help remedy the social and economic challenges posed by population aging in others.”

The Financial Times Magazine has recently featured the study by Eggleston, Lee, and Iizuka, calling it “groundbreaking in several ways but perhaps most clearly for setting its sights not on manufacturing but on the services sector, where robots are only just beginning to make their mark.” The great value of the study, the article notes, is that it lays the foundation for an empirical debate “on a subject that will be deluged with human emotion as robots continue their march into the services sector.”

You can also listen to a Financial Times podcast that features the new study (the segment starts at 4:52).

[Subscribe to our newsletters to stay informed on research happening at APARC.]

Oliver Hart and the ‘Proper Scope of Government’

Hart’s seminal economic theory, ‘The Proper Scope of Government,” underpins much of the research into public-private partnerships in healthcare. Hart developed this touchstone framework jointly with Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny to better evaluate when a government should provide a service itself and when it should contract with a private provider for support and execution of services.

The model outlined in Hart, Shleifer, and Vishny’s original 1996 working paper is designed to help providers and contractors consider the costs and benefits of a proposed contractual service agreement. While this model was originally applied to the case of prison privatization, the framework has served as an invaluable tool for researchers in multiple sectors including health policy and provision.

Reflections and Updates to the Theory

In reflecting on ‘The Proper Scope of Government,’ there are things Hart would like to see more fully incorporated into the theory to enrich its real-world applicability. Chiefly among these is better accounting for contractual incompleteness or the reality that a contract cannot anticipate and outline every possible unforeseen event or area of ambiguity. However, modeling contractual incompleteness is notoriously difficult given the almost-limitless factors of variability.

Some of Hart’s recent work on guiding principles responds to this challenge. Rather than trying to predict every aspect of a contractual relationship within the framing and language of a standard contract model, Hart argues that mutually agreed-upon guiding principles —such as equity, loyalty, and honesty — can serve as a foundation for navigating inevitable areas of ambiguity and potential conflict that a contract does not specifically state or that the original theory does not fully account for.

These guiding principles also help preserve space for renegotiation and innovation, which are necessary in an era of rapid technological advances and explosion of measurable data. In this context, Hart cautions against the mentality of ‘more is more:’

“If you put more and more things into the contract and then something happens that wasn’t in the contract, the fact that you put so much more in may make it more difficult to negotiate about the thing that you didn’t put in.”

 Applying ‘The Proper Scope of Government’

Hart shared a prime example of his theory at work in health systems in a case study of the Vancouver Island Health Authority. Traditionally, family physicians would continue as the primary care provider for their patients even if a patient needed hospitalization. But a change of law in 2006 required all specialized in-hospital care be contracted to hospitalists with little to no crossover with care provided by family practice physicians.

The result was a rise in caseload and stress levels amongst hospital specialists and repeated failed negotiations of the standard contract. The addition of guiding principles to the contract, however, provided avenues where reasonable solutions and additional communications could happen beyond the limits of the formal contract.

This is just one case of innumerable where Hart’s work has helped inform and contextualize how policymakers consider relationships between the public and private spheres of healthcare. Responding to the praise and input from fellow economists presented in a tribute documentary to the impact of his framework, Hart remarked:

“I hadn't realized how many people have been influenced by this paper and how they've been using it in different contexts. I knew some of the applications, but there were others I didn't, and it’s been truly amazing to see that.”

Looking Toward the Future

The tradeoffs between public and private partnerships in healthcare systems across the world will continue to be a dynamic and evolving area of research that will rely on theories such as ‘The Proper Scope of Government’ for framing and application. Looking towards the future, Hart was hopeful but cautious about the vitality of the kind of theoretical tradition which allowed for the development of his original theory. He recognizes that specialties such as contract theory and contractual incompleteness are inherently “messy” and somewhat out of vogue with current trends in economics which tend to favor theories that are “impressive, clever, and non-obvious,” regardless of whether they address important questions.

As he iterated in his Nobel Prize lecture, the incomplete world of contracts nonetheless “underlies numerous significant phenomena, some of which have great policy relevance,” and therefore fully deserving of upcoming economists’ time and efforts.

Further Research into Public-Private Partnerships

The Asia Health Policy Program’s 2020-21 colloquium series focuses on the roles and impacts of public-private partnerships in healthcare and the tradeoffs in equity, accessibility, and cost that come with contracted agreements in health systems. All of the events from the colloquium series are available on our YouTube channel. Click the thumbnails below to start exploring.

Collaborative governance — that is, relationships involving both the private and public sectors in the pursuit of public value — is part of ongoing research by Karen Eggleston. Her forthcoming book, The Dragon, the Eagle, and the Private Sector (Cambridge University Press), co-authored with Harvard’s John D. Donahue and Richard J. Zeckhauser, examines the ways in which collaborative governance works across a wide range of policy arenas in China and the United States, with the goal of empowering public decisionmakers to more wisely engage the private sector. Join us for the book launch event, which will be held jointly with the Harvard Kennedy School on March 5 

 

Image