Measuring Efficiency in Health Care

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rowena Jacobs ◽  
Peter C. Smith ◽  
Andrew Street
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Measuring Efficiency

scholarly journals Measuring efficiency of the German health care system from the population perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Köppen ◽  
K Achstetter ◽  
M Blümel ◽  
R Busse
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care System ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
German Health Care System ◽  
German Health ◽  
Measuring Efficiency ◽  
Care Systems ◽  
Care System

Abstract Background Human and financial resources in health care systems are limited and require efficient use. Efficiency is one of the final goals of the WHO Health Systems Framework but measuring efficiency and finding room for improvement is complex; a rarely used approach is the assessment from the population perspective. This study aims to analyse, if inefficiencies in the German health care system are present and can be identified by the population. Methods In 2018, a survey was conducted with a random sample of 20,000 insured persons of a German private health insurance (PHI) company. Three aspects of efficiency were operationalized in the questionnaire: self-reported duplicate tests, prescription of unnecessary health services, and adequacy of insurance premiums. Results are based on descriptive analyses. Results In total, 3,601 respondents (age 58.9 ± 14.5; 64.9% male) were included (18.0%) in the analyses. Efficiency was rated as follows: 20% of respondents experienced duplicate tests due to a lack of coordination between physicians. This rate was even higher (38%) among those who perceived (very) poor/fair coordination. Unnecessary services (self-assessed) were prescribed to 22% of all respondents and was 50% among patients who experienced that physicians' consultations and treatments were led by motives other than the patients' wellbeing. A total of 33% rated their premiums as (too) high, 63% as fair and 4% as (very) low with differences according to income, sex and health status. Conclusions From a population perspective, the German health care system has the potential to be more efficient e.g. by reducing duplicate tests. Patients with PHI experience unnecessary services and duplicate tests, which put a strain on both, the already limited financial and personnel resources on a macro level, and the level of the individual PHI premium. Key messages Patients perceived tests or services as unnecessary, and hence, can detect inefficiencies of a health care system. Efficiency can be improved e.g. by a better coordination of care between health care providers.

Linking Spending and Quality Indicators to Measure Value and Efficiency in Health Care

2016 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 452-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew M. Ryan ◽  
Christopher P. Tompkins ◽  
Adam A. Markovitz ◽  
Helen R. Burstin
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Model Selection ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Link Quality ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Alternative Models ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Measuring Efficiency ◽  
Alternative Approaches

Policy makers and stakeholders have reached a consensus that both quality and spending or resource use indicators should be jointly measured and prioritized to meet the objectives of our health system. However, the relative merits of alternative approaches that combine quality and spending indicators are not well understood. We conducted a literature review to identify different approaches that combine indicators of quality and spending measures to profile provider efficiency in the context of specific applications in health care. Our investigation identified seven alternative models that are either in use or have been proposed to evaluate provider efficiency. We then used publicly available data to profile hospitals using these approaches. Profiles of hospital efficiency using alternative models yielded wide variation in performance, underscoring the importance of model selection. By identifying the current efficiency models and evaluating their trade-offs within specific programmatic contexts, our analysis informs stakeholder and policy maker decisions about how to link quality and spending indicators when measuring efficiency in health care.

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-203
Author(s):  
Kendra Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Elder Abuse ◽  
Skilled Nursing Facility ◽  
Pressure Sores ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Nursing Facility ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

A Tribute to the Late William J. Curran

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Legal Medicine ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Institute ◽  
University Professor

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document