Relative efficiency and productivity: a preliminary exploration of public hospitals in Beijing, China

BMC Health Services Research

Tingfang Liu³  Siping Dong²  Hao Li¹ 

[1]Laboratorio Management e Sanità, Istituto di Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa 56127, Italy

[2]School of Political Science and Public Administration, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China

[3]Institute for Hospital Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

关键词: China;    Performance evaluation;    Scale efficiency;    Technical efficiency;    Technological change;    Total factor productivity;    Public hospital;   

Others  :  1132796
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-158

 received in 2013-01-16, accepted in 2014-04-01,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Third-grade hospitals in Beijing have been rapidly developing in capacity and scale for many years. These hospitals receive a large number of patients, and ensuring their efficient operation is crucial in meeting people’s healthcare needs. In this context, a study of their relative efficiency and productivity would be helpful to identify the driving factors and further improve their performance.

Methods

After a review of literature, the current numbers of open beds and employees were selected as input variables. The number of outpatient and emergency visits and the number of discharged patients were selected as output variables. A total of 12 third-grade Class A general public hospitals in Beijing were selected for a preliminary study. The panel data from 2006–2009 were collected by the National Institute of Hospital Administration, Ministry of Health of P.R. China. Descriptive analysis and data envelopment analysis were used to analyze the data using Stata 10.0 and DEAP(V2.1) software.

Results

In the 2006–2009 period, descriptive results show that sample hospitals continuously expanded their capacity and scale, with growth rate of total revenue being the highest among all variables. The DEA results show that the average annual growth rate of productivity was 26.7%, and the rates were 47.3%, 21.3% and 13.8% respectively for two consecutive years. The average annual growth rate of technological change was 28.3%, and the rates were 49.4%, 21.5% and 16.4% respectively for two consecutive years. The average annual growth rate of technical efficiency change was -1.3%, and the rates were -1.4%, -0.02% and -2.2% respectively for two consecutive years.

Conclusions

The sample hospitals in Beijing experienced substantial productivity growth, but annual growth rates were declining. Substantial technological change was the main contributor to the growth. Although some hospitals exhibited improvements in technical efficiency, there was a slight decline in general. To improve overall efficiency and productivity, both government and hospitals need to further drive positive technological change, technical change, and allocative efficiency of public hospitals. More empirical studies are needed to include more hospitals of all three grades at a larger scale.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Li et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Chen H, Ding JT: Health investment structure, health improvement and economic growth. J Public Manage 2010, 7:54-62.
• [2]Wang H, Xu T, Xu J: Factors contributing to high costs and inequality in China’s health care system. JAMA 2007, 298:1928-1930.
• [3]Ministry of Health of China: Ministry of Health of China: The rules for accreditation management of general hospitals (Pilot draft). 1989. [Government document] Available at http://www.orthochina.com/orthopedic/topic.jsp?className=%BD%A1%BF%B5%BD%CC%D3%FD&ID=4605 webcite
• [4]Liu TF: Institutional change and path selection of hospital accreditation in China. Chin Health Qual Manage. 2011, 18:31-34.
• [5]Kuang L: The continuing scale expansion mechanism of Chinese public hospitals. Chin J Health Policy 2011, 4:28-37.
• [6]Pang HM, Wang XW: Evaluating efficiency of level III general hospitals in China based on DEA Malmquist index. Chin Hosp Manage 2010, 30:35-37.
• [7]Wang H, Ma Y, Li B, Li DN: Application of DEA in evaluating the efficiency of third-grade hospitals in Harbin. Chin J Hosp Stat 2006, 13:289-292.
• [8]LU WJ, Yang Q, Feng ZC: Analysis of Malmquist index of the dynamic changes of hospital efficiency in Wuhan. Chin Hosp Manage 2011, 31:28-31.
• [9]Wang W, Chen SX, Peng XM, Zhai ZT, Chen SR, Tian YL: Efficiency analysis of public hospitals in Guangdong Province. Chin Hosp Manage 2008, 28:16-19.
• [10]Liu J, He MQ: Research on the assessment of technical efficiency of comprehensive hospitals and determining factors. Sci Manage Res 2010, 6:69-71.
• [11]Gai RY, Zhou CC, Xu LZ, Zhu M, Wang XZ, Li SX, Zheng WG, Song PP, Yang XL, Fang LY, Zheng YC, Tang W: Health resources allocation and productive efficiency of Chinese county hospitals: data from 1993 to 2005. BioScience Trends 2010, 4:218-224.
• [12]Ng YC: The productive efficiency of Chinese hospitals. China Econ Rev 2011, 22:428-439.
• [13]Worthington AC: Frontier efficiency measurement in health care: a review of empirical techniques and selected applications. Med Care Res Rev 2004, 61:135-170.
• [14]Hollingsworth B: The measurement of efficiency and productivity of healthcare delivery. Health Econ 2008, 17:1107-1128.
• [15]Daraio C, Simar L: Advanced robust and nonparametric methods in efficiency analysis. Methodology and Applications. New York: Springer; 2007.
• [16]Charnes A, Cooper W, Rhodes E: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 1978, 3:429-444.
• [17]Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper W: Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 1984, 9:1078-1092.
• [18]Wheelock DC, Wilson PW: Technical progress, inefficiency, and productivity change in U.S. banking, 1984–1993. J Money Credit Bank 1999, 31:212-234.
• [19]Malmquist S: Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de Estadistica 1953, 4:209-242.
• [20]Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE: Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers. Econ J 1982, 92:73-86.
• [21]Lovell CAK: The decomposition of Malmquist productivity indexes. J Prod Anal 2003, 20:437-458.
• [22]Fare R, Grosskopf S, Norris M, Zhang ZY: Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. Am Econ Rev 1994, 84:66-83.
• [23]Moffat BD, Valadkhani A, Harvie C: Malmquist indices of productivity change in Botswana’s financial institutions. Glob Bus Econ Rev 2009, 11:28-43.
• [24]Coelli T: A guide to DEAP(V2.1): A data envelopment analysis (computer) program. Armidale: University of New England; 1996.
• [25]Simar L, Wilson PW: Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: how to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. Manage Sci 1998, 44:49-61.
• [26]Nuti S, Daraio C, Speroni C, Vainieri M: Relationships between technical efficiency and the quality and costs of health care in Italy. Int J Qual Health C 2011, 23:324-330.
• [27]Yip W, Hsiao W: China’s health care reform: a tentative assessment. China Econ Rev 2009, 20:613-619.
• [28]OECD: Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Report. Paris; 2011.
• [29]Bloom N, Van Reenen J: Why do management practices differ across firms and countries? J Econ Perspect 2010, 24:203-224.
• [30]Farrell MJ: The measurement of productive efficiency. J Roy Stat Soc A Gen 1957, 120:253-290.
• [31]The NHS Confederation: Challenging bureaucracy. London: Report; 2013.
• [32]Gao W: DRG pilot experiment in Beijing. Chin Hosp CEO 2011, 24:32-39.
• [33]Hu B, Ji XM, Fei XL, Wei L, Wang RX: Analysis of the medical services and payment mode for patients with emergency in a Beijing Hospital from 2007 to 2008. Chin Hosp Manage 2010, 30:24-26.
• [34]Vasanthakumar NB: Institutional arrangements and efficiency of health care delivery systems. Eur J Health Econ 2005, 6:215-221.
• [35]Smith PC, Mossialos E, Papanicolas I, Leatherman S: Performance measurement for health system improvement: experiences, challenges and prospects. Cambridge University Press; 2009. [European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies]
• [36]Nuti S, Vainieri M, Bonini A: Disinvestment for re-allocation: a process to identify priorities in healthcare. Health Policy 2010, 95:137-143.
• [37]Nuti S, Seghieri C, Vainieri M: Assessing the effectiveness of a performance evaluation system in the public health care sector: some novel evidence from the Tuscany region experience. J Manage Gov 2013, 17:59-69.
• [38]Nuti S, Seghieri C, Vainieri M, Zett S: Assessment and improvement of the Italian healthcare system: first evidences from a pilot national performance evaluation system. J Healthc Manag 2012, 57:182-198.
• [39]LI H, Barsanti S, Bonini A: Building China’s municipal healthcare performance evaluation system: a Tuscan perspective. Int J Qual Health C 2012, 24:403-410.
• [40]Coelli TJ, Rao DSP: Implicit Value Shares in Malmquist TFP Index Numbers. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. University of New England; [CEPA Working Papers No. 4/2001]