| Title | Measuring hospital efficiency: comparing DEA and SFATranslog methods | |
| Authors | George Katharakis¹, John Mantas², Daphne Kaitelidou³ and Theofanis Katostaras⁴
1. Mathematician, MSc in Health Informatics, Ph.D. Candidate National and Kapodistrian University, Athens, Hellas 2. Professor, Health Informatics Laboratory, Faculty of Nursing, National and Kapodistrian University, Athens, Hellas 3. Assistant Professor, Faculty of Nursing, National and Kapodistrian University, Athens, Hellas 4. Associate Professor, Faculty of Nursing, National and Kapodistrian University, Athens, Hellas |
|
| Citation | Katharakis, G., Mantas, J., Kaitelidou, D., Katostaras, T.: Measuring hospital efficiency: comparing DEA and SFATranslog methods, Epitheorese Klin. Farmakol. Farmakokinet. 27(1): 17-31 (2013) | |
| Publication Date | Accepted for publication (Final Version): April 10, 2013 | |
| Full Text Language | English | |
| Order – Buy | Ηλεκτρονική Μορφή: pdf (10 €) – Digital Type: pdf (10 €) pharmakonpress[at]pharmakonpress[.]gr | |
| Keywords | Efficiency, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA), bootstrap, Translog form, OR in Health Services. | |
| Other Terms | review article | |
| Summary | Frontier techniques have been used to measure healthcare provider efficiency in hundreds of published studies. Although these methods have the potential to be useful to decision makers, their utility is limited by both methodological questions concerning their application. The aim of this paper is to examine the data envelopment analysis (DEA) and stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) results in order to facilitate a common understanding about the adequacy of these methods, defining any differences in healthcare efficiency estimation. A two-stage bootstrap DEA method and the formula of the SFATranslog were performed. Multi-inputs and multi-outputs were used in both of the approaches assuming two scenarios either including environmental variables or not. One hundred twenty (120) Greek public hospital units constitute the sample with a panel data period 2009-2011. DEA and SFATranslog were found to yield different efficiency estimates due to the nature of the environmental variables and statistical noise. Most of the environmental variables were found significantly correlating with inefficiency. There is a need for careful attention by stakeholders to be specific when choosing the appropriate mathematical form since the nature of the data and its availability influence the measurement of the efficiency. | |
| References | 1. Katharaki Μ.: Approaching the management of hospital units with an operation research technique. The Case of thirty two Greek Obstetric and Gynaecology Public Units. Health Policy 85: 19-31 (2008)
2. Mortimer D.: A Systematic Review of Direct DEA vs SFA/DFA Comparisons. Centre for Health and Evaluation, Australia: Working Paper 136 (2002) 3. Chirikos T., Sear A.: Measuring hospital efficiency: a comparison of two approaches. Health Serv. Res. 34: 1389-1408 (2000) 4. Jacobs R.: Alternative methods to examine hospital efficiency: Data Envelopment Analysis and Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Health Care Manage. Sc. 4: 103-115 (2001) 5. Linna M.: Measuring hospital cost efficiency with panel data models. Health Econ. 7: 415-427 (1998) 6. Desaia A., Ratick S., Schinnar A.: Data envelopment analysis with stochastic variations in data. Soc. Econ. Plan. Sc. 39: 147–164 (2005) 7. Smith P., Street A.: Measuring the efficiency of public services: the limits of analysis. J. R. Soc. Soc. 168: 401–417 (2005) 8. Assaf A., Matawie K.: Cost efficiency modeling in healthcare food service operations. Int. J. Hosp. Man-age. 27: 604–613 (2008) 9. Kontodimopoulos N., Papathanasiou N., Flokou A., Tountas Y., Niakas D.: The Impact of Non-Discretionary Factors on DEA and SFA Technical Efficiency Differences. J. Med. Syst. 35: 981-989 (2010) 10. Martin S., Smith P.: A comparison of English primary care trusts. Preliminary statistical analysis, The Health Foundation Inspiring Improvement (2010) 11. Veen S.: Comparative Efficiency Analysis from the Perspective of the Dutch Health Care Insurer. Determining the Usefulness of Efficiency Measures for Contracting Primary Care Organizations. Health Economics at the Erasmus University Rotterdam (Master Thesis) (2012) 12. Nedelea C., Fannin J.: Efficiency Analysis of Rural Hospitals: Parametric and Semi-parametric Approaches. No 119725, Annual Meeting, Birmingham, Alabama from Southern Agricultural Economics Association (2012) 13. Katharakis G., Katostaras T.: SFA vs. DEA for measuring healthcare efficiency: A systematic review. (under review) (2012) 14. Hollingsworth B.: The measurement of efficiency and productivity of health care delivery. Health Econ. 17: 1107-1128 (2008) 15. Jacobs R., Smith P., Street A.: Measuring Efficiency in Health Care. Analytic Techniques and Health Policy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006 16. Simar L., Wilson P.: Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. J. Econ. 136: 31-64 (2007) 17. Rosko D., Mutter L.: Inefficiency differences between Critical Access Hospitals and prospectively paid rural hospitals. J. Health Polit. Pol. Law. 35: 95-126 (2010) 18. Chen A., Hwang Y., Shao B.: Measurement and sources of overall and input inefficiencies: Evidences and implications in hospital services. Eur. J. Op. Res. 161: 447-468 (2005) 19. Ippoliti R., Falavigna G.: Efficiency of the medical care industry: Evidence from the Italian regional system. Eur. J. Op. Res. 217: 643-652 (2012) 20. Ludwig M, Groot W, Van Merode F.: Hospital efficiency and transaction costs: a stochastic frontier approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 69: 61-7 (2009) 21. Wilson P.: FEAR: A software package for frontier efficiency analysis with R. Soc. Econ. Plan. Sci. doi:10.1016/j.seps.2007.02.001 22. Coelli T.: A guide to FRONTIER version 4.1: A computer program for stochastic frontier production and cost function estimation. CEPA Working Paper 96/07, Department of Econometrics, University of New England, Armidale, Australia 23. Cullinane K., Wang T.F., Song D.W., Ji P.: The technical efficiency of container ports: comparing data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. Transportation Research Part A 40: 354-374 (2006) 24. Farrell M.: The measurement of productive efficiency. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Series A. 120: 253-281 (1957) 25. Charnes A., Cooper W., Rhodes E.: Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. Eur. J. Op. Res. 2: 429-444 (1978) 26. Banker R., Charnes A., Cooper W.: Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Manag. Sci. 30: 1078-1092 (1984) 27. Charnes A., Cooper W.: Preface to topics in Data Envelopment Analysis. Ann. Oper. Res. 2: 59-94 (1985) 28. Aigner D., Lovell C., Schmidt P.: Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production functions. J. Econ. 6: 21-37 (1997) 29. Meeusen W., van den Broeck J.: Efficiency estimation from Cobb-Douglas production function with com-posed error. Inter. Econ. Rev. 18: 435-444 (1977) 30. McDonald J.: Using least squares and tobit in second stage DEA analyses. Eur. J. Op. Res. 197: 792-798 (2009) 31. Simar L., Wilson P.: Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: How to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. Man. Sci. 44: 49-61 (1998) 32. Prochazkova J.: Efficiency of Hospitals in the Czech Republic: DEA & SFA Applications. Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, thesis (2011) 33. Coelli T., Rao D., O’Donnell C., Battese G.: An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. 2nd ed. Springer, New York, 2005
|
|
| Relative Papers |
Online ISSN 1011-6575