title: The association between hospital ownership and technical efficiency in a managed care environment.
abstract: This study assessed the association between hospital ownership and technical efficiency in a managed care environment. Hospital technical efficiency scores were calculated via the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method, employing four input variables and three output variables from the American Hospital Association Hospital Survey Data for acute care general hospitals in Florida. By utilizing the hospital technical efficiency scores as a dependent variable, we determined that non-profit hospitals were more efficient than for-profit hospitals for all 4 years examined in this study. In particular, for-profit hospitals with between 100 and 249 beds and those with more than 400 beds had lower technical efficiency scores as compared to their nonprofit peers. Another finding was that teaching hospitals were more efficient than non-teaching hospitals in 2001-2003, but not in 2004. Those variables associated with managed care, namely "number of HMO contracts" and "contracted with HMO", however, were not shown to be statistically significant.
authors.affiliation: Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. klee2@fsu.edu
authors.forename: Keon-Hyung
authors.initials: KH
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Seung-Bum
authors.initials: SB
authors.lastname: Yang
authors.forename: Mankyu
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Choi
mesh_terms: D000573:American Hospital Association; D016208:Databases, Factual; D017598:Efficiency, Organizational; D005431:Florida; D006279:Health Maintenance Organizations / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006739:Hospital Administration; D006761:Hospitals / Q000145:classification; D006779:Hospitals, Public / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006788:Hospitals, Voluntary / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D008329:Managed Care Programs; D010067:Ownership; D012044:Regression Analysis; D014481:United States
references.citation: Hosp Health Serv Adm. 1992 Fall;37(3):333-46
references.pmid: 10120493
references.citation: Med Care. 1992 Sep;30(9):781-94
references.pmid: 1518311
references.citation: J Health Econ. 1988 Dec;7(4):301-20
references.pmid: 10303150
references.citation: J Med Syst. 2002 Apr;26(2):127-43
references.pmid: 11993569
references.citation: Health Serv Res. 2000 Oct;35(4):849-67
references.pmid: 11055452
references.citation: Med Care Res Rev. 2004 Jun;61(2):135-70
references.pmid: 15155049
references.citation: Health Care Manag Sci. 2001 Jun;4(2):103-15
references.pmid: 11393739
references.citation: Inquiry. 2005 Spring;42(1):73-85
references.pmid: 16013587
references.citation: JAMA. 1996 Oct 2;276(13):1060-4
references.pmid: 8847768
references.citation: Health Care Manag Sci. 2002 Feb;5(1):7-14
references.pmid: 11860081
references.citation: JAMA. 1991 Nov 20;266(19):2719-23
references.pmid: 1942424
references.citation: Rand J Econ. 1991 Autumn;22(3):430-45
references.pmid: 10117044
references.citation: J Med Syst. 1996 Jun;20(3):141-50
references.pmid: 8798945
references.citation: Inquiry. 1987 Fall;24(3):221-32
references.pmid: 2958412
references.citation: Health Serv Res. 1993 Feb;27(6):719-39
references.pmid: 8428810
references.citation: Health Econ. 1999 May;8(3):233-43
references.pmid: 10348418
references.citation: Med Care. 1994 Nov;32(11):1153-62
references.pmid: 7967855