title: Cost efficiency of nursing homes: do five-star quality ratings matter?
abstract: Nursing homes may respond to the pressure to reduce costs by reducing quality of care, so the two are related. This study examines the determinants of nursing home costs and cost efficiency, and investigates how various measures of nursing home care quality influence both of these. It applies a one-step stochastic frontier approach to a large panel of California nursing homes surveyed between 2009 and 2013. Quality is measured by three different ratings available on the Nursing Home Compare website: rating on quality measures, rating on the health inspection, and rating on staffing levels. Results show that the rating on quality measures, an outcome-based measure of quality, is inversely related to costs but unrelated to mean cost efficiency. In other words, a better rating on quality measures is associated with lower nursing home costs. The health inspection rating is not associated with either costs or mean cost efficiency. The rating for staffing levels, a structural measure of quality, is negatively associated with cost efficiency. These findings reveal that different measures of quality have different relationships with costs and cost efficiency. The findings suggest that better quality outcomes in nursing homes may be achievable with fewer resources and/or improved care procedures, which in turn should reduce nursing home costs.
authors.affiliation: Department of Economics, Wayne State University, 656 W Kirby, 2110 FAB, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA. dz9515@wayne.edu.
authors.forename: Rajendra
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Dulal
keywords: Cost; Efficiency; Quality; Stochastic frontier approach
references.citation: Health Econ. 2005 Mar;14(3):245-56
references.pmid: 15386654
references.citation: J Health Econ. 1986 Jun;5(2):107-27
references.pmid: 10287222
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Sep-Oct;23(5):243-52
references.pmid: 15371395
references.citation: J Health Econ. 1994 Oct;13(3):317-22
references.pmid: 10138857
references.citation: Health Econ. 2008 Sep;17(9):1057-71
references.pmid: 18702100
references.citation: Med Care Res Rev. 2008 Apr;65(2):131-66
references.pmid: 18045984
references.citation: Health Care Manag Sci. 2005 May;8(2):149-56
references.pmid: 15952611
references.citation: Health Care Manage Rev. 2013 Apr-Jun;38(2):156-65
references.pmid: 22395294
references.citation: Health Econ. 2004 Oct;13(10):959-80
references.pmid: 15455464
references.citation: Med Care. 1995 Oct;33(10):1001-21
references.pmid: 7475400
references.citation: Health Care Manag Sci. 2011 Mar;14(1):22-35
references.pmid: 20922483
references.citation: Eur J Health Econ. 2011 Apr;12(2):115-25
references.pmid: 20306110
references.citation: Health Care Manag Sci. 2014 Jun;17(2):150-61
references.pmid: 24338237
references.citation: Omega. 2009 Jun 1;37(3):672-685
references.pmid: 20161166
references.citation: J Med Syst. 1998 Aug;22(4):211-24
references.pmid: 9690179
references.citation: Health Serv Res. 2004 Jun;39(3):463-88
references.pmid: 15149474
references.citation: Med Care Res Rev. 2014 Jun;71(3):280-98
references.pmid: 24452139
references.citation: J Health Econ. 1996 Feb;15(1):23-48
references.pmid: 10157427
references.citation: Health Care Manag Sci. 2001 Sep;4(3):193-200
references.pmid: 11519845
references.citation: Health Serv Res. 2008 Jun;43(3):1043-61
references.pmid: 18454780