Tilburg University

About: Tilburg University is a education organization based out in Tilburg, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 5550 authors who have published 22330 publications receiving 791335 citations.

Determinants of patient choice of healthcare providers: a scoping review.

Abstract: In several northwest European countries, a demand-driven healthcare system has been implemented that stresses the importance of patient healthcare provider choice. In this study, we are conducting a scoping review aiming to map out what is known about the determinants of patient choice of a wide range of healthcare providers. As far as we know, not many studies are currently available that attempt to draw a general picture of how patients choose a healthcare provider and of the status of research on this subject. This study is therefore a valuable contribution to the growing amount of literature about patient choice. We carried out a specific type of literature review known as a scoping review. Scoping reviews try to examine the breadth of knowledge that is available about a particular topic and therefore do not make selections or apply quality constraints. Firstly, we defined our research questions and searched the literature in Embase, Medline and PubMed. Secondly, we selected the literature, and finally we analysed and summarized the information. Our review shows that patients’ choices are determined by a complex interplay between patient and provider characteristics. A variety of patient characteristics determines whether patients make choices, are willing and able to choose, and how they choose. Patients take account of a variety of structural, process and outcome characteristics of providers, differing in the relative importance they attach to these characteristics. There is no such thing as the typical patient: different patients make different choices in different situations. Comparative information seems to have a relatively limited influence on the choices made by many patients and patients base their decisions on a variety of provider characteristics instead of solely on outcome characteristics. The assumptions made in health policy about patient choice may therefore be an oversimplification of reality. Several knowledge gaps were identified that need follow-up research.

Green Tax Reforms and the Double Dividend: an Updated Reader's Guide

Abstract: This paper draws on the literature on the double dividend to explore whether an environmental tax reform yields not only a cleaner environment but also non-environmental benefits In doing so, it investigates how environmental tax reforms impact welfare, the distribution of income, and employment Also the political economy of environmental taxation is discussed

The Economic Value of Corporate Eco‐Efficiency

Abstract: This study adds new insights to the long-running corporate environmental-financial performance debate by focusing on the concept of eco-efficiency. Using a new database of eco-efficiency scores, we analyse the relation between eco-efficiency and financial performance from 1997 to 2004. We report that eco-efficiency relates positively to operating performance and market value. Moreover, our results suggest that the market's valuation of environmental performance has been time variant, which may indicate that the market incorporates environmental information with a drift. Although environmental leaders initially did not sell at a premium relative to laggards, the valuation differential increased significantly over time. Our results have implications for company managers, who evidently do not have to overcome a tradeoff between eco-efficiency and financial performance, and for investors, who can exploit environmental information for investment decisions.

The Effect of Unemployment Insurance Sanctions on the Transition Rate from Unemployment to Employment

Abstract: This paper finds that unemployment insurance sanctions substantially raise individual transition rates from unemployment to employment. Sanctions are punitive benefits reductions that are supposed to make recipients comply with certain minimum requirements concerning search behavior. We provide a theoretical analysis and we use a unique administrative data set of individuals who started collecting unemployment insurance in the Netherlands in 1992. We deal with various forms of selectivity involved in the imposition of a sanction. We exploit the timing of events as well as the fact that some respondents experience multiple unemployment spells.

Hedging Pressure Effects in Futures Markets

Abstract: We present a simple model implying that futures risk premia depend on both ownmarket and cross-market hedging pressures. Empirical evidence from 20 futures markets, divided into four groups ~financial, agricultural, mineral, and currency! indicates that, after controlling for systematic risk, both the futures own hedging pressure and cross-hedging pressures from within the group significantly affect futures returns. These effects remain significant after controlling for a measure of price pressure. Finally, we show that hedging pressure also contains explanatory power for returns on the underlying asset, as predicted by the model. FUTURES PRICES ARE KNOWN TO DEVIATE from expected future spot prices because of risk premia that traders expect to earn ~or pay! when trading in futures markets. Futures risk premia are important because they affect the costs and benefits of hedging, as well as the diversification benefits that result from including futures in investment portfolios. Also, to the extent that economic agents make their production, storage, and consumption decisions by looking at futures prices as indicators of future spot prices, it is important to know the bias that exists in futures prices. There is an ongoing debate about the determinants of futures risk premia. Futures risk premia are usually related to systematic risk, as in the work of Dusak ~1973!, Black ~1976!, and Jagannathan ~1985!, among others, and to net positions of hedgers in futures markets, which is known as hedging pressure. Hedging pressure results from risks that agents cannot, or do not want to trade because of market frictions such as transaction costs and information asymmetries. The use of hedging pressure as an explanation for the futures price bias dates back to Keynes ~1930! and Hicks ~1939!, and has more recently been incorporated in models that allow both hedging pressure and systematic risk to affect futures prices ~see, e.g., Stoll ~1979! and Hirshleifer ~1988, 1989!!. Carter, Rausser, and Schmitz ~1983! and Bessembinder ~1992! provide empirical evidence for the combined role of the futures con