Effective antitrust enforcement is of crucial importance for countries with a market-based health care system in which hospitals are expected to compete. Assessing hospital market power – a central issue to competition policy – is, however, complicated because the presence of third party payers and the general unobservability of prices make it difficult to apply the standard methods of market definition. Alternative, less formal methods historically employed in the hospital industry have proven inaccurate; these methods were even called inapplicable in a recent US court decision. In this paper, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of several new approaches to defining hospital markets that are suggested in the recent economic literature. In particular, we discuss the applicability of the time-elasticity approach, competitor-share approach, and option-demand approach to the recently partly deregulated Dutch hospital market. We conclude that the appropriate approach depends crucially on how health insurers contract with hospitals and how patients select their hospital.

Focusing on the problem of pharmaceutical R&D for drugs and vaccines against neglected diseases in developing countries, this article argues that the effectiveness of global health partnerships potentially lies in their capacity to address the problem of dual market failures: on a first level they may tackle the poverty induced lack of effective demand for health products which impedes the creation of market-financed innovative products. On a second level, they may help overcoming hold-up problems and underinvestment induced by the complexity of neglected diseases R&D. Yet, organizing transactions within a partnership is not a panacea against these problems: a crucial determinant of success is proper ownership structures. They need to respond to (i) the degree to which the respective parties value the partnership outcome, (ii) the relative importance of the investment of the parties, and (iii) the nature of the partnership outcome. The argument developed in the analysis is built on an integrated framework combining insights from incomplete contracting theory and public goods economics. It is supported by a preliminary statistical analysis of 17 GHPs.

Co-payments have been linked to the slowing growth in pharmaceutical spending over the last five years. However, patients with health problems frequently have difficulty affording their pharmacotherapy and fail to take their medication as prescribed. We examine the relationship between co-payment amounts and four types of cost-related underuse: taking fewer doses, postponing taking a medication, failing to fill a prescription at all, and taking medication less frequently than prescribed. We conducted a nationwide survey of US adults age 50 and over who take medication for a chronic condition. Participants provided information on 17 chronic conditions, medication they take for those conditions, and whether they underused any medication due to cost. We analyzed those who reported paying co-payments for their prescriptions (n = 2,869). Analysis involved multivariate logistic regression, with adjustments for survey weights and clustering. Our data show a strong positive association between co-payments and cost-related medication underuse. Although people differ in how they underuse medications, these behaviours are strongly associated with co-payment amount. Realigning the co-payments with cost-effectiveness data, also known as value-based insurance design, warrants further investigation.

Most health economists recommend that improvements in health be valued by asking members of the general public to imagine themselves in different states of health and then to think about how many years of life they would give up or what risk of death they would be willing to accept in order to be in full health. In this paper, I argue that preferences are not a very good guide to future experiences and a more suitable way to value health is to ask people in different states of health how they think and feel about their lives. Valuing health in this way may result in greater priority being given to mental health services. Whatever the precise implications, it is my contention that it is much better to ration health care according to real experiences rather than according to hypothetical preferences.

This comment on Paul Dolan's essay, ‘Developing methods that really do value the “Q” in the QALY,’ seconds his critique of current preference-based methods of valuing health states but disputes both his assumption that health states should be appraised by their bearing on well-being and his conclusion that the bearing of health states on well-being should be measured in terms of subjective experience. This comment defends instead the view that health states should be valued in terms of the range of activities that they permit.

There are a number of substantial problems with using decision-based utility measures such as the time trade off and standard gamble to value improvements in health. Dolan (this issue) argues that because of these problems, it would be better to use measures of real experiences (subjective well being). We review evidence that supports criticisms of decision-based utility measures, whether provided by patients or non-patients. But we also review a number of substantial problems with currently used measures of subjective well-being, and point out that there is no definitive evidence that they represent any improvement over decision utility measures. We conclude with a call for expanded research into developing new tools for quantifying health-related quality of life that are more valid, more sensitive to changes in health status, and less biased.