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