The effect of environmental factors on technical and scale efficiency of primary health care providers in Greece

• Main Authors: Aletras Vassilis H, Moschovakis Giorgos, Kontodimopoulos Nick, Niakas Dimitris
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2007-11-01
• Series: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
• Online Access: http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/5/1/14

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to compare technical and scale efficiency of primary care centers from the two largest Greek providers, the National Health System (NHS) and the Social Security Foundation (IKA) and to determine if, and how, efficiency is affected by various exogenous factors such as catchment population and location.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The sample comprised of 194 units (103 NHS and 91 IKA). Efficiency was measured with Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) using three inputs, -medical staff, nursing/paramedical staff, administrative/other staff- and two outputs, which were the aggregated numbers of scheduled/emergency patient visits and imaging/laboratory diagnostic tests. Facilities were categorized as small, medium and large (<15,000, 15,000–30,000 and >30,000 respectively) to reflect catchment population and as urban/semi-urban or remote/island to reflect location. In a second stage analysis, technical and scale efficiency scores were regressed against facility type (NHS or IKA), size and location using multivariate Tobit regression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Regarding technical efficiency, IKA performed better than the NHS (84.9% vs. 70.1%, Mann-Whitney <it>P </it>< 0.001), smaller units better than medium-sized and larger ones (84.2% vs. 72.4% vs. 74.3%, Kruskal-Wallis <it>P </it>< 0.01) and remote/island units better than urban centers (81.1% vs. 75.7%, Mann-Whitney <it>P </it>= 0.103). As for scale efficiency, IKA again outperformed the NHS (89.7% vs. 85.9%, Mann-Whitney <it>P </it>= 0.080), but results were reversed in respect to facility size and location. Specifically, larger units performed better (96.3% vs. 90.9% vs. 75.9%, Kruskal-Wallis <it>P </it>< 0.001), and urban units showed higher scale efficiency than remote ones (91.9% vs. 75.3%, Mann-Whitney <it>P </it>< 0.001). Interestingly 75% of facilities appeared to be functioning under increasing returns to scale. Within-group comparisons revealed significant efficiency differences between the two primary care providers. Tobit regression models showed that facility type, size and location were significant explanatory variables of technical and scale efficiency.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Variations appeared to exist in the productive performance of the NHS and IKA as the two main primary care providers in Greece. These variations reflect differences in primary care organization, economical incentives, financial constraints, sociodemographic and local peculiarities. In all technical efficiency comparisons, IKA facilities appeared to outperform NHS ones irrespective of facility size or location. In respect to scale efficiency, the results were to some extent inconclusive and observed differences were mostly insignificant, although again IKA appeared to perform better.</p>