Literature DB >> 20630645

Rural vs urban hospital performance in a 'competitive' public health service.

Javier Garcia-Lacalle1, Emilio Martin.   

Abstract

In some western countries, market-driven reforms to improve efficiency and quality have harmed the performance of some hospitals, occasionally leading to their closure, mostly in rural areas. This paper seeks to explore whether these reforms affect urban and rural hospitals differently in a European health service. Rural and urban hospital performance is compared taking into account their efficiency and perceived quality. The study is focused on the Andalusian Health Service (SAS) in Spain, which has implemented a freedom of hospital choice policy and a reimbursement system based on hospital performance. Data Envelopment Analysis, the Mann-Whitney U test and Multidimensional Scaling techniques are conducted for two years, 2003 and 2006. The results show that rural and urban hospitals perform similarly in the efficiency dimension, whereas rural hospitals perform significantly better than urban hospitals in the patient satisfaction dimension. When the two dimensions are considered jointly, some rural hospitals are found to be the best performers. As such, market-driven reforms do not necessary result in a difference in the performance of rural and urban hospitals. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20630645     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  11 in total

1.  Analysis of the cost and efficiency relationship: experience in the Turkish pay for performance system.

Authors:  Mehmet Sahin Gok; Erkut Altındağ
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-04-11

2.  Performance Evaluation of Combining with Medical and Old-Age Care in Pension Institutions of China: A Two-Stage Data Envelopment Analysis.

Authors:  Na Du; Peng Wu; Man Yuan; Zhiwu Li
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2021-10-08

Review 3.  Efficiency and optimal size of hospitals: Results of a systematic search.

Authors:  Monica Giancotti; Annamaria Guglielmo; Marianna Mauro
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Patient Satisfaction in the Spanish National Health Service: Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling.

Authors:  María Del Carmen Valls Martínez; Alicia Ramírez-Orellana
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Health Investment Management and Healthcare Quality in the Public System: A Gender Perspective.

Authors:  María Del Carmen Valls Martínez; Alicia Ramírez-Orellana; Mayra Soledad Grasso
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Factors Impacting Patients' Willingness to Recommend: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.

Authors:  Jing Xu; Sinyoung Park; Jie Xu; Hanadi Hamadi; Mei Zhao; Koichiro Otani
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2022-02-01

7.  Urban public health: is there a pyramid?

Authors:  Meirong Su; Bin Chen; Zhifeng Yang; Yanpeng Cai; Jiao Wang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Do university hospitals perform better than general hospitals? A comparative analysis among Italian regions.

Authors:  Sabina Nuti; Tommaso Grillo Ruggieri; Silvia Podetti
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Knowledge discovery from patients' behavior via clustering-classification algorithms based on weighted eRFM and CLV model: An empirical study in public health care services.

Authors:  Zeinab Zare Hosseini; Mahdi Mohammadzadeh
Journal:  Iran J Pharm Res       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 1.696

10.  Determinants of efficiency growth of county-level public hospitals-evidence from Chongqing, China.

Authors:  Jing Liu; Beibei He; Xiaolan Xu; Leming Zhou; Jiang Li; Gongru Wang; Yingyao Chen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.