| Literature DB >> 26807044 |
Tim Ensor1, Sovannarith So2, Sophie Witter3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cambodia has been reconstructing its economy and health sector since the end of conflict in the 1990s. There have been gains in life expectancy and increased health expenditure, but Cambodia still lags behind neighbours One factor which may contribute is the efficiency of public health services. This article aims to understand variations in efficiency and the extent to which changes in efficiency are associated with key health policies that have been introduced to strengthen access to health services over the past decade.Entities:
Keywords: Cambodia; Data envelopment analysis; Efficiency; Health districts; Health sector reform; Productivity; Regression analysis
Year: 2016 PMID: 26807044 PMCID: PMC4724134 DOI: 10.1186/s12962-016-0051-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc ISSN: 1478-7547
Coverage of health initiatives in target provinces and ODs
| OD | Delivery vouchersa | User fees formalised | HEF/CBHI | National maternity incentives scheme | Contracting-in and out | SOA (SDG) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 1997–2011 | 2012 | 2007–present | 1999–2003 | 2004–2008 | 2009–2010 | ||
| Battambanga | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||
| Kompong Cham | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Kandalb | 8 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 8 | |||
| Kompotb | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | |||
| Stung Treng | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
Source: MoH Updated Administrative Records
aIn Battambang, delivery vouchers started in 2008 in three ODs and building up HEF experiences started in 2006 for some health centres in three ODs to scale up implementation for all five ODs in 2011
bTwo OD in Kampot (Angkor Chey, Kampong Trach and Kampot) started HEF in 2006/2008 and two ODs (KschaKandal and Takhmao) in Kandal since 2006/7 are supported by MoH, while the rest are supported by donor funds; the starting data of the HEF is between 2005 to 2011
Characteristics of selected areas
| Ecological region | Province | No. of ODs | No. of RHs | No. of HCs | Total population | Characteristics | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Plain | Phnom Penh | 4 | 5 | 17 | 1,327,615 | Urban; high level external partner support |
| 2. | Plain | Kandal | 8 | 6 | 94 | 1,265,280 | Rural; unsupported by partners |
| 3. | Plain | Kampong Cham | 10 | 11 | 136 | 1,679,992 | Rural; supported by partners |
| 4. | Tonle sap | Battambang | 5 | 4 | 76 | 1,025,174 | Rural; supported by partners |
| 5. | Coastal | Kampot | 4 | 4 | 50 | 585,850 | Rural; supported by partners |
| 6. | Plateau and mountainous | Stung Treng | 1 | 1 | 11 | 111,671 | Rural; supported by partners |
| Total for the country | 77 | 80 | 292 | 13,395,682 | |||
Source: document review for policies; NIS and MOP, 2009 for population data
Average staffing in each operational district
| Battambang | Kampang Cham | Kampot | Kandal | Stung Treng | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | |||||
| Doctors | 6.8 | 6.0 | 8.3 | 11.4 | 10.0 |
| Secondary nurse | 62.2 | 37.2 | 42.8 | 21.6 | 59.0 |
| Primary nurse | 37.0 | 21.0 | 28.0 | 20.1 | 65.0 |
| Secondary midwife | 32.4 | 10.6 | 14.8 | 9.1 | 31.0 |
| Primary midwife | 19.2 | 12.1 | 15.8 | 11.8 | 42.0 |
| Other medical staff | 14.0 | 6.8 | 6.5 | 7.4 | 11.0 |
| 2011 | |||||
| Doctors | 5.8 | 6.6 | 9.5 | 12.4 | 9.0 |
| Secondary nurse | 62.0 | 37.8 | 41.3 | 22.9 | 68.0 |
| Primary nurse | 36.4 | 23.4 | 32.3 | 18.0 | 67.0 |
| Secondary midwife | 34.8 | 11.3 | 19.8 | 11.4 | 30.0 |
| Primary midwife | 23.0 | 19.8 | 22.3 | 15.8 | 50.0 |
| Other medical staff | 14.2 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 6.6 | 7.0 |
Other medical staff include pharmacists, pharmacist assistances and medical and dental assistants
Fig. 1Trends in outpatient consultation and new cases by study province, 2008–2011 (Source: MoH’ s annual statistic report 2008–2011)
Fig. 2The results of efficiency scores without expenditures, 2008–2011
Fig. 3The results of efficiency scores with expenditures, 2008–2011
Malmquist index and decomposition (with and without expenditure as an input)
| Without expenditure | With expenditure | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008–2009 | 2009–2010 | 2010–2011 | Mean | 2008–2009 | 2009–2010 | 2010–2011 | Mean | |
| Marmquist productivity index | ||||||||
| Battambang | 1.400 | 1.390 | 1.073 | 1.248 | 1.285 | 1.392 | 1.092 | 1.219 |
| Kampang Cham | 1.233 | 1.190 | 0.938 | 1.091 | 1.180 | 1.190 | 0.924 | 1.068 |
| Kampot | 1.242 | 1.193 | 0.916 | 1.053 | ||||
| Kandal | 1.046 | 1.126 | 0.998 | 1.042 | 1.019 | 1.075 | 1.028 | 1.025 |
| Stung Treng | 0.817 | 1.106 | 1.170 | 1.019 | 0.689 | 1.020 | 1.170 | 0.937 |
| Total | 1.175 | 1.233 | 0.974 | 1.092 | 1.128 | 1.186 | 1.004 | 1.080 |
| Technical progress in sector | ||||||||
| Battambang | 1.167 | 1.149 | 1.087 | 1.127 | 1.123 | 1.139 | 1.057 | 1.100 |
| Kampang Cham | 1.149 | 1.075 | 0.977 | 1.058 | 1.109 | 1.049 | 0.969 | 1.035 |
| Kampot | 0.978 | 1.046 | 0.930 | 0.975 | ||||
| Kandal | 1.137 | 1.042 | 0.937 | 1.033 | 1.079 | 1.015 | 0.959 | 1.014 |
| Stung Treng | 0.909 | 1.243 | 0.957 | 1.026 | 0.872 | 1.025 | 1.024 | 0.971 |
| Total | 1.121 | 1.095 | 0.985 | 1.059 | 1.092 | 1.055 | 0.987 | 1.039 |
| Technical efficiency change | ||||||||
| Battambang | 1.170 | 1.244 | 0.986 | 1.109 | 1.111 | 1.256 | 1.033 | 1.110 |
| Kampang Cham | 1.074 | 1.112 | 0.957 | 1.032 | 1.072 | 1.140 | 0.949 | 1.033 |
| Kampot | 1.289 | 1.183 | 0.984 | 1.082 | ||||
| Kandal | 0.922 | 1.083 | 1.063 | 1.009 | 0.949 | 1.060 | 1.071 | 1.011 |
| Stung Treng | 0.899 | 0.890 | 1.223 | 0.993 | 0.790 | 0.996 | 1.143 | 0.965 |
| Total | 1.045 | 1.137 | 0.989 | 1.031 | 1.027 | 1.132 | 1.015 | 1.039 |
Tobit regression results for OD efficiency and policy/area characteristics (CRS and VRS, without expenditure)
| CRS | VRS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | z | Coef. | z | ||
| Year | |||||
| 2009 | 0.08 | 2.24* | 0.11 | 2.41** | |
| 2010 | 0.17 | 4.76 | 0.13 | 2.77*** | |
| 2011 | 0.15 | 4.11*** | 0.11 | 2.41** | |
| Policies | |||||
| Vouchers only | 0.04 | 0.41 | −0.05 | −0.40 | |
| HEF only | 0.11 | 1.74** | −0.03 | −0.40 | |
| HEF + vouchers | 0.16 | 2.24** | 0.00 | 0.05 | |
| HEF + vouchers with SOA | 0.26 | 2.99*** | 0.16 | 1.52 | |
| Population Density | |||||
| 2 | 0.01 | 0.09 | −0.02 | −0.29 | |
| 3 | −0.04 | −0.23 | −0.03 | −0.18 | |
| 4 | 0.16 | 1.45** | 0.09 | 0.74 | |
| Province | |||||
| Kampong Cham | 0.16 | 1.88*** | 0.14 | 1.66 | |
| Kampot | −0.19 | −1.97 | |||
| Kandal | 0.11 | 1.29*** | 0.12 | 1.37 | |
| Stung Treng | −0.27 | −1.76 | −0.25 | −1.62 | |
| Constant | 0.46 | 5.45*** | 0.69 | 7.90 | |
| Observations | 92.00 | 92.00 | |||
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
Tobit regressions: OD productivity and additional effects from new scheme introduction (CRS and VRS, without expenditure)
| CRS | VRS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | z | Coef. | z | |
| Year | ||||
| 2009 | 0.07 | 2.00** | 0.09 | 2.02* |
| 2010 | 0.17 | 4.56*** | 0.11 | 2.47*** |
| 2011 | 0.14 | 3.59*** | 0.09 | 1.85**** |
| Policies | ||||
| Existing hef | 0.06 | 0.87 | −0.06 | −0.92 |
| Existing vouchers | 0.09 | 1.17 | 0.08 | 1.02 |
| New policy (hef,voucher, SOA) | 0.114 | 2.41*** | 0.124 | 2.18** |
| Population density | ||||
| 2 | −0.02 | −0.30 | −0.04 | −0.50 |
| 3 | −0.08 | −0.51 | −0.05 | −0.30 |
| 4 | 0.17 | 1.47* | 0.10 | 0.89 |
| Province | ||||
| Kampong Cham | 0.18 | 2.17*** | 0.16 | 1.84* |
| Kampot | −0.17 | −1.60* | −0.14 | −1.35 |
| Kandal | 0.13 | 1.55 | 0.16 | 1.82* |
| Stung Treng | −0.19 | −1.24 | −0.18 | −1.14 |
| Constant | ||||
| Observations | 92 | – | 92 | – |
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01