title: Longitudinal analysis of efficiency in multiple output dialysis markets.
abstract: Provider efficiency in the dialysis industry in the U.S.A. has been of great interest for a variety of parties mainly because of the continuing growth in the number of such patients and providers and in the industry's costs. This study examined technical efficiency longitudinally among the multiple-output producers of freestanding facilities, as the dominant group of providers, using the DEA-based Malmquist index. Nationally representative data were obtained from Independent Renal Facility Cost Report Data Files for the years 1994 through 2000. The resulting sample comprised 140 facilities that had operated throughout the seven study years and jointly produced all dialysis outputs with nonzero inputs. The results show that over the period 1994-2000, on average multi-output, freestanding dialysis facilities did not achieve improvement in productivity. Decomposition of the Malmquist productivity indices showed improvement in technical efficiency but at the same time regress in technologies with potential to improve their quality of care. Negative change in technology was the major source of negative movement in productivity. The study concludes that under the fixed-price payment policy, multiple dialysis outputs are produced efficiently, but it may be that the quality of care is being sacrificed.
authors.affiliation: School of Health Administration, Hacettepe University, Samanpazari, Ankara, 06100, Turkey. hozgen@hacettepe.edu.tr
authors.forename: Hacer
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Ozgen
authors.forename: Yasar A
authors.initials: YA
authors.lastname: Ozcan
mesh_terms: D000554:Ambulatory Care Facilities / Q000600:supply & distribution*; D017598:Efficiency, Organizational / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D007676:Kidney Failure, Chronic / Q000628:therapy*; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D006435:Renal Dialysis; D014481:United States
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 1999 Jan-Feb;18(1):161-79
references.pmid: 9926654
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1999 Nov 25;341(22):1653-60
references.pmid: 10572154
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1981 Aug 20;305(8):434-8
references.pmid: 7019710
references.citation: Health Serv Res. 1994 Oct;29(4):473-87
references.pmid: 7928373
references.citation: Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1997;12 Suppl 1:10-21
references.pmid: 9075223
references.citation: J Health Econ. 1987 Jun;6(2):89-107
references.pmid: 10312167
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1993 Nov 4;329(19):1395-9
references.pmid: 8413437
references.citation: Health Serv Res. 2002 Jun;37(3):711-32
references.pmid: 12132602
references.citation: JAMA. 1996 Apr 10;275(14):1123-6
references.pmid: 8601933
references.citation: Health Serv Res. 1999 Feb;33(6):1567-92
references.pmid: 10029498
references.citation: Med Care. 1994 Feb;32(2):130-40
references.pmid: 8302105
references.citation: Adv Ren Replace Ther. 1994 Apr;1(1):24-31
references.pmid: 7641085
references.citation: Mod Healthc. 1992 May 11;22(19):56, 58
references.pmid: 10117630
references.citation: Am J Kidney Dis. 1990 May;15(5):441-50
references.pmid: 2333866
references.citation: Health Care Financ Rev. 2003 Summer;24(4):77-88
references.pmid: 14628401
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1993 Feb 4;328(5):366-71
references.pmid: 8419833
references.citation: Inquiry. 2000 Fall;37(3):282-94
references.pmid: 11111285
references.citation: J Health Econ. 1983 Aug;2(2):95-118
references.pmid: 10263967