Authors

Abstract

Background and Objective: Expressing relationship between financial payments and performances’ results in health system could be explained by performance-based financing presentation. This study aimed to indicate differences in budget efficiencies amongst the Iranian provinces by comparative means, using performances data on public health sector in the provinces, and results of computing provinces’ relative budget efficiencies.
Materials and Methods: in this study, statistical-descriptive analysis method was used and operational or performance-based budget efficiency indicators in the Iranian provinces using record data from the Health Ministry and the Iranian Health Insurance Organization were used. Presenting a simple picture of performance-based budgeting, by health expenditure, manpower and physical resources for outpatient and inpatient performances in the provinces, the comparative indicators of efficiencies were computed, using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method.
Results: The country average of budget efficiencies for performances maximization in 2011 and 2013 were 0.55 and 0.58 for outpatient services, respectively, and 0.82 and 0.86 for inpatient services, respectively. The efficiency indicators in the public sector showed provinces, despite having the same conditions on revenue collecting and performance regulating, are classified with considerable differences in service maximization and expenditure or budget minimization
Conclusion: This study is the first research, introducing efficiency indicators in operational or performance-based budgeting scheme in the public health sector. Efficiency differences amongst provinces, and declining efficiency in some provinces in the second year could be considered sources of efficiency unsustainability and inequalities and limiting access to health sector goals.

Keywords

References

1. Turcotte-Tremblay AM, Spagnolo J, De Allegri M, Ridde V. Does performance-based financing increase value for money in low-and middle-income countries? A systematic review. Health Economics Review 2016; 29:6(1):30. 2. Musgrove P. Rewards for good performance or results: a short glossary. Washington, DC: World Bank 2010. 3. Paul E, Robinson M. Performance budgeting, motivation, and incentives. In Performance Budgeting. Palgrave Macmillan UK 2007; 330-375. 4. Renmans D, Paul E, Dujardin B. Analysing Performance-Based Financing through the Lenses of the Principal-Agent Theory. Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy and Management (IOB) 2016. 5. Renmans D, Holvoet N, Orach CG, Criel B. Opening the ‘black box’of performance-based financing in low-and lower middle-income countries: a review of the literature. Health Policy and Planning 2016; 1:31(9):1297-309. 6. World Health Organization, "World Health Report. Health Systems Financing. The Path to Universal Coverage 2010. 7. Moynihan D, Beazley I. Toward Next-Generation Performance Budgeting: Lessons from the Experiences of Seven Reforming Countries. World Bank Publications 2016. 8. De Jong, M, and Frans K. M. Van Nispen. “On the Utilization of Performance Information in Times of Austerity: From Success to a Return to Squeaky Wheel Budgeting? Paper presented at the Association for Budgeting 2014. 9. Wiseman V, Mitton C, Doyle Waters MM, Drake T, Conteh L, Newall AT, Onwujekwe O, Jan S. Using economic evidence to set healthcare priorities in low income and lower middle income countries: a systematic review of methodological frameworks. Health Economics 2016; 1:25(S1):140-61. 10. Kroll A. Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance & Management Review 2015; 3:38(3):459-86. 11. White J. Budget-makers and health care systems. Health Policy 2013; 31:112(3):163-71. 12. Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kaló Z, Lönngren T, Mussen F, Peacock S, and Watkins J, Devlin N. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making — emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health 2016; 30:19(2):125-37. 13. Abolhallaj M and et al. Theory and practice of public sector health financing. Publication of Rahe Soraya 2013; 350. First edition. [Persian] 14. Folland ST, Hofler RA. How reliable are hospital efficiency estimates? Exploiting the dual to homothetic production. Health Economics 2001; 10(8): 683-98. 15. E Gutiérrez, S Lozano. Measuring A DEA Approach to Performance-Based Budgeting of Formula One Constructors. Journal of Sports Economics 2014; 15(2):125-37. 16. Rahimi B, Khalesi N, Valinejadi A, et al. Analysis of the Efficiency and Optimal Consumption of Resources in Selected Hospitals in Urmia Province through Data Envelopment Analysis. Health Management 2011; 47(1):91-102. 17. Mahfoozpour S, Pouragh B, Abedi Z, Satarivand S, Assessing efficiency in hospitals of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences using Data Envelopement Analysis Method, Journal Of Health Promotion Management 2015; 15(1). 18. Fazeli E, Vafaei F, Jamshidinavid B, Investigation on efficacy of the hospitals affiliated to Ilam University of Medical Sciences by DEA method, Scientific Journal of Ilam University of Medical Sciences 2015; 23(1). 19. Hadad S, Hadad Y, Simon-Tuval T. Determinants of healthcare system’s efficiency in OECD countries. The European Journal of Health Economics 2013; 1:14(2):253-65. 20. Liaropoulos L, Goranitis I. Health care financing and the sustainability of health systems. International Journal for Equity in Health 2015;15:14(1):80. 21. Shanklin D, Tan J. Literature Review: Civil Society Engagement to Strengthen National Health Systems to End Preventable Child and Maternal Death 2016. 22. Evaluating Budget Support: Methodological Approach. OECD Development Assistance Committee. Available in: http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation (OECD DAC) 2012.
Daneshvar Medicine
Volume 26, Issue 2 - Serial Number 135
July and August 2018
Pages 39-50

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics