Purpose: Performance evaluation is a general problem both in production and service systems. Generally, operation performance is determined based on input resource utilization and on outputs related data. Performance evaluation is especially complicated when both financial and nonfinancial indicators must be considered in the evaluation of the efficiency of healthcare system. The purpose of this paper is to apply data envelopment analysis (DEA) in order to measure the efficiency of rehabilitation departments curing musculoskeletal diseases.
Methodology/Approach: The evaluation of the efficiency of rehabilitation departments includes several parameters. Performance evaluation becomes complicated when several evaluation criteria must be taken into consideration at the same time. In these cases, scoring methods are generally used, which transform performance data into a common scale and an aggregate score is calculated with subjective weights. Using DEA the subjective element of evaluation is eliminated when the weights of inputs and outputs are determined.
Findings: The applied DEA model evaluates the performance of rehabilitation departments. The presented analysis highlights the differences between the efficiency of the studied departments, and explores inefficiencies related to economies of scale. The slack values directly show the operational shortcomings in specific areas, and indicate the exact amount of the required changes.
Research Limitation/implication: The applied DEA model evaluates the performance of rehabilitation departments. The presented analysis highlights the differences between the efficiency of the studied departments, and explores inefficiencies related to economies of scale. The slack values directly show the operational shortcomings in specific areas, and indicate the exact amount of the required changes.Originality/Value of paper: The originality of the paper lies on the identification of inputs and outputs for the applied DEA model as only nonfinancial indicators were taken into consideration. The analysis involves all rehabilitation departments of the Hungarian healthcare system; consequently, conclusions related to the general state of this area can be drawn.
Asandului, L., Roman, M. and Puiu, F., 2014. The efficiency of health systems in Europe: a Data Envelopment Analysis Approach. Procedia Economics and Finance, 10, pp.261-268.
Boussofiane, A., Dyson, R.G. and Thanassoulis, E., 1991. Applied data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operations Research, 53, pp.1-15.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rodes, A., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operations Research, 2, pp.429-444.
Csákvári, T., Turcsányi, K., Ágoston, I., Endrei, D. and Boncz, I., 2014. Az aktív fekvőbeteg-szakellátás hatékonysága és mérési lehetőségei (Efficiency and measuring possibilities of active in-patient care). IME egészség-gazdaságtan különszám, 13(special issue), pp.29-32.
Dénes, R., 2015. Indicators in the quality development of health care. In: SGEM, 2nd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts, Albena, Bulgaria, 26 August - 01 September 2015. Book 1 (Psychology, Psychiatry, Education, Sociology & Healthcare). pp.605-612.
Donabedian, A., 1980. The definition of quality and approaches to its management. Vol 1: Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring. Ann Arbor, Mich: Health Administration Press.
Hadad, S., Hadad, Y. and Simon-Tuval, T., 2011. Determinants of health system’s efficiency in OECD countries. European Journal of Health Economy, 14, pp.253-265.
Hwang, S.N. and Chang, T.Y., 2003. Using data envelopment analysis to measure hotel managerial efficiency change in Taiwan. Tourism Management, 24(4), pp.357-369.
Kirigia, J.M., Emrouznejad, A. and Sambo, L.G., 2002. Measurement of technical efficiency of public hospitals in Kenya: using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Medical Systems, 26(1), pp.39-45.
Koltai, T., Lozano, S., Uzonyi-Kecskés, J. and Moreno, P., 2017. Evaluation of the results of a production simulation game using a dynamic DEA approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 10, pp.1-11.
Portafke, N., 2010. The growth of public health expenditures in OECD countries: Do government ideology and electoral motives matter?. Journal of Health Economy, 29(6), pp.797-810.
Reynolds, D. and Thompson, G.M., 2007. Multiunit restaurant productivity assessment using three-phase data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(1), pp.20-32.
Rivera, B., 2010. The effects of public health spending on self-assessed health status: an ordered probit model. Applied Economics, 33(10), pp.1313-1319.
Rosko, M., 1990. Measuring technical efficiency in health care organizations. Journal of Medical Systems, 14(5), pp.307-322.
Schoenberg, N.E., Kim, H., Edwards, W. and Fleming, S.T., 2007. Burden of Common Multiple Morbidity Constellations on Out-of-Pocket Medical Expenditures Among Older Adults. The Gerontologist, 47(4), pp.423-437.
Sherman, H., 1984. Hospital efficiency measurement and evaluation: empirical test of a new technique. Medical Care, 22(10), pp.922-938.
Spinks, J. and Hollingsworth, B., 2009. Cross-country comparisons of technical efficiency of health production: a demonstration of pitfalls. Applied Economics, 41, pp.417-427.
Tone, K., 2001. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, pp.498-509.
Vitrai, J. and Vokó, Z., 2012. A hazai egészségmonitorozás lehetséges szerepe az egészségügyi rendszer teljesítményének mérésében és alkalmazásának aktuális problémái (The possible role of healthy monitoring in measuring the of output of Hungarian health system and the problems of implementation). Egészségügyi Gazdasági Szemle, 50(2), pp.33-36.
Vos, T., Murray, Ch. and Barber, R., 2015. Global Burden of Disease Study, Global, regional and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet, 386(9995), pp.743-800.