Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Random Output and Hospital Performance

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many countries are under pressure to reform health care financing and delivery. Hospital care is one part of the health system that is under scrutiny. Private management initiatives are a possible way to increase efficiency in health care delivery. This motivates the interest in developing methodologies to assess hospital performance, recognizing hospitals as a different sort of firm. We present a simple way to describe hospital production: hospital output as a change in the distribution of survival probabilities. This output definition allows us to separate hospital production from patients' characteristics. The notion of “better performance” has a precise meaning: (first-order) stochastic dominance of a distribution of survival probabilities over another distribution. As an illustration, we compare, for an important DRG, private and public management and find that private management performs better, mainly in the range of high-survival probabilities. The measured performance difference cannot be attributed to input prices or to economies of scale and/or scope. It reflects pure technological and organisational differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. Butler, Hospital Cost Analysis, Developments in Health Economics and Public Policy, Vol. 3 (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht and Boston, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  2. S.X. Chen, A Beta kernel estimator for density functions, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 31(2) (1999) 131-145.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S.X. Chen, Probability density functions estimation using Gamma kernels, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 52(3) (2000) 471-480.

    Google Scholar 

  4. T. Chirikos and A. Sear, Measuring hospital efficiency: A comparison of two approaches, Health Services Research 34(6) (2000) 1389-1408.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. Conrad, T. Wickizer, C. Maynard, T. Klastorin, D. Lessler, A. Ross, N. Soderstrom, S. Sullivan, J. Alexander and K. Travis, Managing care, incentives, and information: An exploratory look inside the “Black Box” of hospital efficiency, Health Services Research 31(3) (1996) 235-259.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. Cutler, M. McClellan and J. Newhouse, The costs and benefits of intensive treatment for cardiovascular disease, NBER working paper 6514 (1998).

  7. D. Cutler, M. McClellan and J. Newhouse, How does managed care do it? Rand Journal of Economics 31(3) (2000) 526-548.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. Cutler, M. McClellan, J. Newhouse and D. Remler, Pricing heart attack treatments, NBER Working Paper 7089 (1999).

  9. A. Donabedian, The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment, Vol. I (Health Administration Press, Chicago, (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Grosskopf and V. Valdmanis, Measuring hospital performance: A non-parametric approach, Journal of Health Economics 6(2) (1987) 89-107.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Instituto Nacional de Administração (INA), Avaliação dos Hospitais: Fernando Fonseca e Garcia de Orta (Evaluation of Hospitals Fernando Fonseca and Garcia de Orta) (1998).

  12. S.F. Jencks, Clinical performance measurement - a hard sell, Journal of the American Medical Association 283(15) (2000) 1-5.

    Google Scholar 

  13. E. Keeler, R. Bell, D. Gifford, J. Keesey and R. Park, Adjusting cesarean delivery rates for case mix, Health Services Research 32(4) (1997) 511-528.

    Google Scholar 

  14. A.N. Kolmogorov, Sulla determinazione empirica di une legge di distribuzione, Giorn. Dell'Inst. Degli Att. 4 (1933) 83-91.

    Google Scholar 

  15. S. Lemeshow, D. Teres, J. Avrunin and H. Pastides, Predicting the outcome of ICU patients, Journal of the American Statistical Association 83 (1988) 348-356.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Linna, Measuring hospital cost efficiency with panel data models, Health Economics 7(5) (1998) 415-427.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. McClellan, B. McNeil and J. Newhouse, Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? Journal of the American Medical Association 272(11) (1994) 859-866.

    Google Scholar 

  18. B.W. Silverman, Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis, 2nd Ed. (Chapman and H Almadall, 1993).

  19. W.V. Smirnov, On the estimation of the discrepancy between empirical curves of distribution of two independent samples, Bulletin of Mathematics University of Moscow 2(2) (1939) 3-14.

    Google Scholar 

  20. A. Tey, Measuring hospital quality, Columbia University, Mimeo (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  21. V. Vaccarino, L. Parsons, N. Every, H. Barron and H. Krunholz, Sexbased differences in early mortality rates after myocardial infarction, The New England Journal of Medicine 341(4) (1999) 217-225.

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. Zuckerman, J. Hadley and L. Iezzoni, Measuring hospital efficiency with frontier cost functions, Journal of Health Economics 13(3) (1994) 255-280.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculdade de Economia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Travessa Estevão Pinto, 1099-032, Lisboa, Portugal and CEPR (London)

    Pedro Pita Barros

Authors
  1. Pedro Pita Barros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barros, P.P. Random Output and Hospital Performance. Health Care Management Science 6, 219–227 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026277507298

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026277507298

Search

Navigation