The main argument for the ongoing privatization process is that privatization will lead to an increase in efficiency, which has been confirmed by a large number of studies. An important argument against privatization is that privatization may lead to employment reductions. In the hospital sector, potential employment reductions might also lead to a decrease in the quality of care. This is the first study to investigate the employment effects of different types of hospital privatization (i.e., for-profit vs non-profit privatization) on different categories of staff. A combination of propensity score matching and difference-in-difference methods was used to identify the causal effect. We found large employment reductions after for-profit privatization, while there were no permanent reductions after non-profit privatization. Moreover, even for-profit privatization does not affect all types of staff. While there are large reductions in non-clinical staff, we could not detect any reduction in the number of physicians. The consequences of the detected employment effects of privatization have to be addressed in greater detail in future research.

The share of indirect costs as a percentage of total costs for CF was rather low in this study. However, the relevance of indirect costs is likely to increase in the future as the life expectancy of CF patients increases, which is likely to lead to a rising work disability rate and thus increase indirect costs. Moreover we found that infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa increases costs substantially. Thus, a decrease of the prevalence of P. aeruginosa would lead to substantial savings for society.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. This is the first study to specify a physician practice cost function with practice costs as the unit of analysis. Our study is based on the data of 3,706 physician practices for the years 2006 to 2008. We propose a model using physician practices as the unit of observation and considering the endogenous character of physician input. In doing so, we apply a translog functional form and include a comprehensive set of variables (e.g., degree of specialisation and case-mix) that have not been previously used in this context. A system of four equations using three-stage least squares is estimated. Terms of use: Documents inWe find that a higher degree of specialisation and participation in disease management programs and gatekeeper models leads to a decrease in costs, whereas quality certification increases costs. Costs increase with the number of physicians, most likely because of the existence of indivisibilities of expensive technical equipment. Smaller practices might not reach the critical mass to invest in certain technologies, which leads to differences in the type of health care services provided by different practice types.

No abstract

This is the first study to use stochastic frontier analysis to estimate both the technical and cost efficiency of physician practices. The analysis is based on panel data from 3,126 physician practices for the years 2006 through 2008. We specified the technical and cost frontiers as translog function, using the one-step approach of Battese and Coelli to detect factors that influence the efficiency of general practitioners and specialists. Variables that were not analyzed previously in this context (e.g., the degree of practice specialization) and a range of control variables such as a patients' case-mix were included in the estimation. Our results suggest that it is important to investigate both technical and cost efficiency, as results may depend on the type of efficiency analyzed. For example, the technical efficiency of group practices was significantly higher than that of solo practices, whereas the results for cost efficiency differed. This may be due to indivisibilities in expensive technical equipment, which can lead to different types of health care services being provided by different practice types (i.e., with group practices using more expensive inputs, leading to higher costs per case despite these practices being technically more efficient). Other practice characteristics such as participation in disease management programs show the same impact throughout both cost and technical efficiency: participation in disease management programs led to an increase in both, technical and cost efficiency, and may also have had positive effects on the quality of care. Future studies should take quality-related issues into account.