BackgroundNational Health Systems managers have been subject in recent years to considerable pressure to increase concentration and allow mergers. This pressure has been justified by a belief that larger hospitals lead to lower average costs and better clinical outcomes through the exploitation of economies of scale. In this context, the opportunity to measure scale efficiency is crucial to address the question of optimal productive size and to manage a fair allocation of resources.Methods and findingsThis paper analyses the stance of existing research on scale efficiency and optimal size of the hospital sector. We performed a systematic search of 45 past years (1969–2014) of research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals recorded by the Social Sciences Citation Index concerning this topic. We classified articles by the journal’s category, research topic, hospital setting, method and primary data analysis technique. Results showed that most of the studies were focussed on the analysis of technical and scale efficiency or on input / output ratio using Data Envelopment Analysis. We also find increasing interest concerning the effect of possible changes in hospital size on quality of care.ConclusionsStudies analysed in this review showed that economies of scale are present for merging hospitals. Results supported the current policy of expanding larger hospitals and restructuring/closing smaller hospitals. In terms of beds, studies reported consistent evidence of economies of scale for hospitals with 200–300 beds. Diseconomies of scale can be expected to occur below 200 beds and above 600 beds.

No abstract

BackgroundDue to its epidemiological relevance, several studies have been performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests and treatments in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.ObjectiveWe reviewed economic evaluations on diagnosis of inherited CRC-syndromes and genetic tests for the detection of mutations associated with response to therapeutics.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed by searching the main literature databases for relevant papers on the field, published in the last 5 years.Results20 studies were included in the final analysis: 14 investigating the cost-effectiveness of hereditary-CRC screening; 5 evaluating the cost-effectiveness of KRAS mutation assessment before treatment; and 1 study analysing the cost-effectiveness of genetic tests for early-stage CRC patients prognosis. Overall, we found that: (a) screening strategies among CRC patients were more effective than no screening; (b) all the evaluated interventions were cost-saving for certain willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold; and (c) all new CRC patients diagnosed at age 70 or below should be screened. Regarding patients treatment, we found that KRAS testing is economically sustainable only if anticipated in patients with non-metastatic CRC (mCRC), while becoming unsustainable, due to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) beyond the levels of WTP-threshold, in all others evaluated scenarios.ConclusionsThe poor evidence in the field, combined to the number of assumptions done to perform the models, lead us to a high level of uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness of genetic evaluations in CRC, suggesting that major research is required in order to assess the best combination among detection tests, type of genetic test screening and targeted-therapy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0085-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract