4.6 Article

Estimation of Association between Healthcare System Efficiency and Policy Factors for Public Health

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 8, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app8122674

Keywords

healthcare system efficiency (HSE); DEA bootstrap technique; Tobit model; health policy; OECD countries

Funding

  1. Incheon National University Research Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the association between the healthcare system's efficiency and policy factors (the types of healthcare systems and various health policy indicators). Methods: In this study, a data envelopment analysis (DEA) with bootstrapping was applied to the healthcare system's efficiency to correct the bias of efficiency scores and to rank countries appropriately. We analyzed data mainly from the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) Health Data from 2014. After obtaining the efficiency score result, we analyzed which policy factor caused the inefficiency of the healthcare system by Tobit Regression. Results: Based on five types of healthcare system classification, the result suggested that the social health insurance (e.g., Austria, Germany, Switzerland) showed the lowest efficiency score on average when compared to other types of systems, but evidence of a statistically significant difference in healthcare efficiency among four types of healthcare systems was not found. It was shown that the pure technological efficiency of the healthcare system was negatively influenced by two main factors: user choice for basic insurance coverage and degree of decentralization to sub-national governments. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that countries with relatively low healthcare system efficiency may learn from countries that implement policies related to a low level of user choice and a high level of centralization to achieve more economical allocation of their healthcare resources.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available