Article

The effect of activity-based financing on hospital efficiency: a panel data analysis of DEA efficiency scores 1992-2000.

Department of Economics, University of Oslo, PO Box 1095 Blindern, NO-0317 Oslo, Norway.
Health Care Management Science (Impact Factor: 1.05). 12/2003; 6(4):271-83. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026212820367
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Activity-based financing (ABF) was implemented in the Norwegian hospital sector from 1 July 1997. A fraction of the block grant from the state to the county councils has been replaced by a matching grant depending upon the number and composition of hospital treatments. As a result of the reform, the majority of county councils have introduced activity-based contracts with their hospitals. This paper studies the effect of activity-based funding on hospital efficiency. We predict that hospital efficiency will increase because the benefit from cost-reducing efforts in terms of number of treated patients is increased under ABF as compared with global budgets. The prediction is tested using a panel data set from the period 1992-2000. Efficiency indicators are estimated by means of data envelopment analysis (DEA) with multiple inputs and outputs. Using a variety of econometric methods, we find that the introduction of ABF has improved efficiency when measured as technical efficiency according to DEA analysis. The result is less uniform with respect to the effect on cost-efficiency.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Terje P. Hagen, Jun 28, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
96 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Targeting hospital treatment at patients with high priority would seem to be a natural policy response to the growing gap between what can be done and what can be financed in the specialist health care sector. The paper examines the distributional consequences of this policy. 450000 elective patients are allocated to priority groups on the basis of medical guidelines developed by one of the regional health authorities in Norway. Probit models are estimated explaining priority status as a function of age, gender and socioeconomic status. Women and older people are overrepresented among patients with low priority. Conditional on age, women with low priority have lower income and less education than women with high priority. Among men below 50 years, patients with low priority have less education than patients with high priority. Targeting hospital treatment at patients with high priority, though sensible from a pure medical perspective, may have undesirable distributional consequences.
    Health Policy 05/2010; 95(2-3):264-70. DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.12.003 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years, decentralization of financial and political power has been perceived as a useful means to improve outcomes of the health care sector of many European countries. Such reforms could be the result of fashionable policy trends, rather than being based on knowledge of "what works". If decentralization is the favored strategy in health care, studies of countries that go against the current trend will be of interest and importance as they provide information about the potential drawbacks of decentralization. In Norway, specialized health care has recently been recentralized. In this paper, we review some of the evidence now available on the economic effects of recentralization. Although recentralization has been associated with improvements in both cost efficiency and technical efficiency this may have been caused by the increasing role of activity-based funding methods used in the allocation of health care resources. However, recentralization was also associated with an increase in the rate of growth of real resources and the proportion of total costs being met by supplementary funding. As a result, recentralization failed to address the issues of cost containment and reductions in budget deficits.
    Social Science & Medicine 06/2007; 64(10):2129-37. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.018 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Starting in January 2002, the majority of the Norwegian Parliament transferred the ownership of all public hospitals from the county governments to the central state. This round of reforms represents the most recent attempt by the central government to resolve major problems in the Norwegian health care system. In this paper, we describe these reforms and the problems they are intended to remedy. We also indicate further proposals that we believe need to be accomplished to ensure that the reforms become successful. The main lesson to be learned from the Norwegian experiment is that central government involvement in local and county government decision-making can lead to ambiguous responsibilities and a lack of transparency. This appears to be particularly the case when central government involvement implies shared responsibilities for the financing of particular services.
    Health Policy 06/2006; 76(3):320-33. DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.06.014 · 1.73 Impact Factor