↓ Skip to main content

Cost inefficiency under financial strain: a stochastic frontier analysis of hospitals in Washington State through the Great Recession

Overview of attention for article published in Health Care Management Science, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Cost inefficiency under financial strain: a stochastic frontier analysis of hospitals in Washington State through the Great Recession
Published in
Health Care Management Science, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10729-015-9349-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Germán M. Izón, Chelsea A. Pardini

Abstract

The importance of increasing cost efficiency for community hospitals in the United States has been underscored by the Great Recession and the ever-changing health care reimbursement environment. Previous studies have shown mixed evidence with regards to the relationship between linking hospitals' reimbursement to quality of care and cost efficiency. Moreover, current evidence suggests that not only inherently financially disadvantaged hospitals (e.g., safety-net providers), but also more financially stable providers, experienced declines to their financial viability throughout the recession. However, little is known about how hospital cost efficiency fared throughout the Great Recession. This study contributes to the literature by using stochastic frontier analysis to analyze cost inefficiency of Washington State hospitals between 2005 and 2012, with controls for patient burden of illness, hospital process of care quality, and hospital outcome quality. The quality measures included in this study function as central measures for the determination of recently implemented pay-for-performance programs. The average estimated level of hospital cost inefficiency before the Great Recession (10.4 %) was lower than it was during the Great Recession (13.5 %) and in its aftermath (14.1 %). Further, the estimated coefficients for summary process of care quality indexes for three health conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and heart failure) suggest that higher quality scores are associated with increased cost inefficiency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 14 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 15 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Management Science
#206
of 285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,244
of 363,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Management Science
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.