APPENDIX RESULTS
Appendix Figure 1: Number of Magnet Hospitals within the US from 1997 – 2012
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Source: AHA survey data
1
Appendix Table 1
Summary of the Distribution of Competing Hospitals’ Degree of Magnet
Adoption, 1997 – 2012
Mean
Median
3.8
0.0
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
99th Percentile
4.7
12.5
37.5
Measure captures the percent of a given hospital’s competitors within the
same HRR that have at least one Magnet hospital within its system (or is
itself a Magnet for non-integrated, standalone hospitals)
2
Appendix Figure 2: Dispersion of Magnet Hospitals Across the US in 2012
Source: AHA survey data for 2012
3
Appendix Table 2
Association Between Magnet Recognition and Competing Hospitals’ Degree of Magnet Adoption
Mag Density (t+2)
(1)
--
(2)
--
(3)
--
Hospital Fixed Effects
(4)
--
(5)
--
Mag Density (t+1)
--
--
--
--
--
At Least 10% Magnet
Density Among
Competitors (t)
Mag Density (t-1)
Mag Density (t-2)
Covariates
Year Dummies
HHI
Minor Teaching
Major Teaching
Nonprofit Status
Adv. Tech Status
No. Competitors
0.063***
(0.005)
0.024***
(0.005)
0.024***
(0.005)
0.023***
(0.005)
0.022***
(0.005)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Yes
Yes
0.000
(0.000)
Yes
0.000
(0.000)
0.003
(0.003)
0.028**
(0.012)
0.014***
(0.003)
0.063***
(0.005)
Yes
0.000
(0.000)
0.003
(0.003)
0.028**
(0.012)
0.014***
(0.003)
0.063***
(0.005)
-0.001*
(0.0006)
(6)
0.003
(0.003)
0.005*
(0.003)
0.010***
(0.004)
0.008***
(0.003)
0.005
(0.005)
Yes
0.000
(0.000)
0.002
(0.003)
0.030**
(0.013)
0.013***
(0.003)
0.025***
(0.005)
-0.001
(0.0008)
Observations
5191
5191
5191
5191
5191
5113
*** P value at 0.01 ** P value at 0.05 * P value at 0.10, Huber-White robust standard errors. Magnet recognition is a binary outcome equal to ‘1’ when a given
hospital is a Magnet in a given year. All models are “within-in” estimators (hospital-level fixed effects)
At Least 10% Magnet Density Among Competitors is a binary indicator variable, column 6 includes two leads and two lags of this variable
4
Appendix Table 3
Association Between Magnet Recognition and Competing Hospitals’ Degree of Magnet Adoption (5%
Cutoff)
Hospital Fixed Effects
Mag Density
(t+2)
Mag Density
(t+1)
At Least 5%
Magnet Density
Among
Competitors (t)
Mag Density (t1)
Mag Density (t2)
Covariates
Year Dummies
HHI
Hospital Char.
No.
Competitors
(1)
--
(2)
--
(3)
--
(4)
--
(5)
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.055***
(0.004)
0.016***
(0.004)
0.016***
(0.004)
0.016***
(0.004)
0.015***
(0.004)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(6)
0.006
(0.004)
0.005
(0.004)
0.010***
(0.004)
0.008***
(0.003)
0.005
(0.005)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observations
5191
5191
5191
5191
5191
5113
*** P value at 0.01 ** P value at 0.05 * P value at 0.10, Huber-White robust standard errors
Magnet recognition is a binary outcome equal to ‘1’ when a given hospital is a Magnet in a given year
All models are “within-in” estimators (hospital-level fixed effects)
At Least 10% Magnet Density Among Competitors is a binary indicator variable, column 6 includes two
leads and two lags of this variable
5
Appendix Table 4
Association Between Magnet Recognition and Competing Hospitals’ Degree of Magnet Adoption Using the Low (at least 25%) Threshold
Hospital Fixed Effects
At Least 10% Magnet
Density Among
Competitors
Covariates
Year Dummies
HHI
Hospital Char.
No. Competitors
(1)
0.067***
(0.006)
(2)
0.028***
(0.006)
Yes
(3)
0.029***
(0.006)
Yes
Yes
(4)
0.027***
(0.006)
Yes
Yes
Yes
(5)
0.026***
(0.006)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observations
5191
5191
5191
5191
5191
*** P value at 0.01 ** P value at 0.05 * P value at 0.10, Huber-White robust standard errors
Magnet recognition is a binary outcome equal to ‘1’ when a given hospital is a Magnet in a given year
All models are “within-in” estimators (hospital-level fixed effects)
At Least 10% Magnet Density Among Competitors is a binary indicator variable, a hospital system in a local market is only considered to be a Magnet
institution if at least 25% of its local facilities are Magnets
6
Appendix Table 5
Association Between Magnet Recognition and Competing Hospitals’ Degree of Magnet Adoption Using the Moderate (at least 50%) Threshold
Hospital Fixed Effects
At Least 10% Magnet
Density Among
Competitors
Covariates
Year Dummies
HHI
Hospital Char.
No. Competitors
(1)
0.072***
(0.007)
(2)
0.033***
(0.007)
Yes
(3)
0.033***
(0.007)
Yes
Yes
(4)
0.032***
(0.007)
Yes
Yes
Yes
(5)
0.031***
(0.007)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observations
5191
5191
5191
5191
5191
*** P value at 0.01 ** P value at 0.05 * P value at 0.10, Huber-White robust standard errors
Magnet recognition is a binary outcome equal to ‘1’ when a given hospital is a Magnet in a given year
All models are “within-in” estimators (hospital-level fixed effects)
At Least 10% Magnet Density Among Competitors is a binary indicator variable, a hospital system in a local market is only considered to be a Magnet
institution if at least 50% of its local facilities are Magnets
7
Appendix Table 6
Association Between Magnet Recognition and Competing Hospitals’ Degree of Magnet Adoption Using the High (at least 75%) Threshold
Hospital Fixed Effects
At Least 10% Magnet
Density Among
Competitors
Covariates
Year Dummies
HHI
Hospital Char.
No. Competitors
(1)
0.075***
(0.008)
(2)
0.036***
(0.008)
Yes
(3)
0.036***
(0.008)
Yes
Yes
(4)
0.035***
(0.008)
Yes
Yes
Yes
(5)
0.034***
(0.008)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observations
5191
5191
5191
5191
5191
*** P value at 0.01 ** P value at 0.05 * P value at 0.10, Huber-White robust standard errors
Magnet recognition is a binary outcome equal to ‘1’ when a given hospital is a Magnet in a given year
All models are “within-in” estimators (hospital-level fixed effects)
At Least 10% Magnet Density Among Competitors is a binary indicator variable, a hospital system in a local market is only considered to be a Magnet
institution if at least 75% of its local facilities are Magnets
8