Skip to main content

Table 3 Empirical studies reporting economic effects

From: Comparing public and private providers: a scoping review of hospital services in Europe

  Study and sample characteristics Methods and control variables Difference between ownership type (better is indicated)a
Country Years Sample size Main focus Patient heterogeneity Hospital characteristics Market or environmental characteristicsb Quality of care PB vs. PFP PB vs. PNFP PFP vs. PNFP
Caballer-Tarazona et al. [17] Spain 2009–2010 29 hospitals DEAc - Efficiency X X    n.s.   
Bonastre et al. [14] France 2007–2008 448 hospitals The use of expensive anticancer drug   X    n.s
Czypionka et al. [19] Austria 2010 128 hospitals DEA – technical efficiency X X X   PNFP
Siciliani et al. [45] England 2006–2007 193 hospitals or clinics Length of stay X X X   PFPd   
Augurzky et al. [4] Germany 2001–2005 331 hospitals Probability of default   X X   PFP PNFP PNFP
Kondilis et al. [37] Greece 2001–2003 320–330 hospitals The operation and performance:
1) nurse staffing rates 2) ALoS
3) SHIe payments for hospital care per patient discharged.
  X    PBperf,f
PBpayments,g
Herr et al. [31] Germany 2002–2006 541 hospitals or small chains SFAh- Technical, cost and profit efficiency X X X x n.s tech
n.s cost
PFPprofit
n.s. tech
n.s. cost
PNFPprofit
Schwierz [49] Germany 1996–2006 16,356,428 patient admissions to 1817 hospitals (2006) and 14,921,393 patient admissions to 2040 hospitals (1996) Responsiveness to changes in demand for hospital services X   x   PFP n.s. FP
Berta et al. [12] Italy 1998–2007 The full population of patients and hospitals operating in Lombardy, c. 20,000,000 admissions DEA - Technical efficiency X X    PB n.s. NP
Kontodimo-poulos et al. [39] Greece 2004 124 dialysis facilities DEA – technical efficiency   X X   n.s.   
Daidone and D’Amico [20] Italy 2000–2005 108 hospitals SFA - Technical and cost efficiency X X X   PB PB PNFP
Tiemann et al. [51] Germany 2002–2006 1046 DEA – Technical efficiency X X X X PB PB n.s.
Herr [30] Germany 2000–2003 1556–1635 hospitals SFA - cost and technical efficiency X X   X PB PB PNFP
Farsi and Filippini [25] Switzerland 1998–2003 148 hospitals SFA - cost efficiency (ownership and different subsidy types)   X    n.s. n.s. n.s.
Farsi [24] Switzerland 1998–2002 214 hospitals SFA - cost efficiency (ownership and different subsidy types)   X    n.s. n.s. n.s.
Berry et al. [11] Germany 2002–2003 89 hospitals Operating room productivity   X X   n.s   
Barbetta et al. [6] Italy 1995–2000 531 hospitals DEA, SFA, COLSi - technical efficiency in two periods: 1995–1997 before DRGj payment system introduction
1998–2000 after DRG payment system introduction
  X     NP1995–1997
n.s.1998–2000
 
  1. aPB public, PFP private for-profit, PNFP private not-for-profit
  2. bEnvironmental characteristics included here
  3. cDEA data envelop analysis
  4. dWhen private specialized treatment center (STCs) are compared with public hospitals. In addition, public STCs did better than hospitals, but private ones outperformed them as well
  5. eSHI Social Health Insurance
  6. fPFP hospitals have lower bed capacity, lower occupancy rates and lower nurse (total and high qualified) staffing rates compared to public hospitals and are associated with higher unweighted length of stay
  7. gPFP hospitals have higher SHI payments per discharge
  8. hSFA stochastic frontiers analysis
  9. iCOLS corrected ordinary least squares
  10. jDRG diagnosis related group