Quality and technical efficiency do not evolve hand in hand in Spanish hospitals: Observational study with administrative data

Delving into public-expenditure elasticity: Evidence from a National Health Service acute-care hospital network

INTRODUCTION

The sustainability of public hospital financing in Spain is a recurring issue, given its representativeness in annual public healthcare budgets which must adapt to the macroeconomic challenges that influence the evolution of spending. Knowing whether the responsiveness of hospital expenditure to its determinants (need, utilisation, and quasi-prices) varies according to the type of hospital could help better design strategies aimed at optimising performance.

METHODS

Using SARIMAX models, we dynamically assess unique nationwide monthly activity data over a 14-year period from 274 acute-care hospitals in the Spanish National Health Service network, clustering these providers according to the average severity of the episodes treated.

RESULTS

All groups showed seasonal patterns and increasing trends in the evolution of expenditure. The fourth quartile of hospitals, treating the most severe episodes and accounting for more than 50% of expenditure, is the most sensitive to quasi-price factors, particularly the number of beds per hospital. Meanwhile, the first quartile of hospitals, which treat the least severe episodes and account for 10% of expenditure, is most sensitive to quantity factors, for which expenditure showed an elasticity above one, while factors of production were not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Belonging to one or another cluster of hospitals means that the determinants of expenditure have a different impact and intensity. The system should focus on these differences in order to optimally modulate expenditure not only according to the needs of the population, but also according to the macroeconomic situation, while leaving hospitals room for manoeuvre in case of unforeseen events. The findings suggest strengthening a network of smaller hospitals (Group 1)-closer to their reference population, focused on managing and responding to chronicity and stabilising acute events-prior to transfer to tertiary hospitals (Group 4)-larger but appropriately sized, specialising in solving acute and complex health problems-when needed.

A Network-DEA model to evaluate the impact of quality and access on hospital performance

The relationship between efficiency, quality, and access in healthcare is far from being well defined. In particular, there is no consensus on whether there is a trade-off between hospital performance and its social dimensions, such as the care appropriateness, safety, and access to proper health care. This study proposes a new approach based on the Network Data Envelopment Analysis (NDEA) to evaluate the existence of potential trade-offs between efficiency, quality, and access. The aim is to contribute for the heated debate around this topic with a novel approach. The suggested methodology combines a NDEA model with the weak disposability of outputs to handle with undesirable outputs related to the poor quality of care or the lack of access to appropriate and safe care. This combination results in a more realistic approach that has not yet been used to investigate this topic. We utilised data of the Portuguese National Health Service from 2016 to 2019, with four models and nineteen variables selected to quantify the efficiency, quality, and access to public hospital care in Portugal. A baseline efficiency score was calculated and compared with the performance scores obtained under two hypothetical scenarios to quantify the impact of each quality/access-related dimension on efficiency. The first scenario considers that each variable, individually, is at its best situation (for example, absence of septicaemia cases), and the second one, at its worst (e.g., all seen inpatients had a septicaemia case). The findings suggest that there might exist meaningful trade-offs between efficiency, quality, and access. Most variables exhibited a considerable and negative impact on the overall hospital efficiency. That is, we may expect a trade-off between efficiency and quality/access.

Comparing Hospital Efficiency: An Illustrative Study of Knee and Hip Replacement Surgeries in Spain

WHO's Health Systems Performance Assessment framework suggests monitoring a set of dimensions. This study aims to jointly assess productivity and quality using a treatment-based approach, specifically analyzing knee and hip replacement, two prevalent surgical procedures performed with consolidated technology and run in most acute-care hospitals. Focusing on the analysis of these procedures sets out a novel approach providing clues for hospital management improvements, covering an existing gap in the literature. The Malmquist index under the metafrontier context was used to estimate the productivity in both procedures and its decomposition in terms of efficiency, technical and quality change. A multilevel logistic regression was specified to obtain the in-hospital mortality as a quality factor. All Spanish public acute-care hospitals were classified according to their average severity attended, dividing them into three groups. Our study revealed a decrease in productivity mainly due to a decrease in the technological change. Quality change remained constant during the period with highest variations observed between one period to the next according to the hospital classification. The improvement in the technological gap between different levels was due to an improvement in quality. These results provide new insights of operational efficiency after incorporating the quality dimension, specifically highlighting a decreasing operational performance, confirming that the technological heterogeneity is a critical question when measuring hospital performance.

A comparative performance analysis of a renowned public private partnership for health care provision in Spain between 2003 and 2015

BACKGROUND

Recently, the once archetype of the public private partnership (PPP) in the Spanish National Health System (SNHS), namely the Alzira's Model, has come to an end. Advocates defended the superiority of PPPs over public-tenured provision, in terms of quality and technical efficiency. This paper profiles and compares Alzira's life-cycle performance with similar public-tenured providers.

METHODS

Observational study on secondary data from virtually all hospital care episodes produced in 51 integrated providers (i.e., administrative healthcare areas) and 67 hospitals, in 2003 and 2015. Alzira's 2015 performance (and its variation since 2003) was compared with all public-tenured peers in the SNHS, using 26 indicators analysing the differences in age-sex standardized rates of events or risk-adjusted mortality, severity-adjusted hospital expenditure and hospital technical efficiency.

RESULTS

In comparison with the corresponding public-tenured peers, Alzira's 2015 performance was statistically worse than the benchmark in the majority of indicators (15 out of 26); yet, its performance was one of the best in the SNHS in adjusted-mortality after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). Over time, Alzira showed a statistically greater 2003-2015 improvement than its peers' average in eleven of the indicators, and a lower improvement in nine.

CONCLUSIONS

In this comprehensive comparative study on Alzira's performance, this PPP has not generally outperformed public-tenured providers, although in some areas of care its developments have been outstanding.