Comparing public and private providers: a scoping review of hospital services in Europe

Abstract

BackgroundWhat is common to many healthcare systems is a discussion about the optimal balance between public and private provision. This paper provides a scoping review of research comparing the performance of public and private hospitals in Europe. The purpose is to summarize and compare research findings and to generate questions for further studies.MethodsThe review was based on a methodological approach inspired by the British EPPI-Centre’s methodology. This review was broader than review methodologies used by Cochrane and Campbell and included a wider range of methodological designs. The literature search was performed using PubMed, EconLit and Web of Science databases. The search was limited to papers published from 2006 to 2016. The initial searches resulted in 480 studies. The final sample was 24 papers. Of those, 17 discussed economic effects, and seven studies addressed quality.ResultsOur review of the 17 studies representing more than 5500 hospitals across Europe showed that public hospitals are most frequently reported as having the best economic performance compared to private not-for-profit (PNFP) and private for-profit (PFP) hospitals. PNFP hospitals are second, while PFP hospitals are least frequently reported as superior. However, a sizeable number of studies did not find significant differences. In terms of quality, the results are mixed, and it is not possible to draw clear conclusions about the superiority of an ownership type. A few studies analyzed patient selection. They indicated that public hospitals tend to treat patients who are slightly older and have lower socioeconomic status, riskier lifestyles and higher levels of co-morbidity and complications than patients treated in private hospitals.ConclusionsThe paper points to shortcomings in the available studies and argues that future studies are needed to investigate the relationship between contextual circumstances and performance. A big weakness in many studies addressing economic effects is the failure to control for quality and other operational dimensions, which may have influenced the results. This weakness should also be addressed in future comparative studies.

Multilevel Analysis of the Relationship between Ownership Structure and Technical Efficiency Frontier in the Spanish National Health System Hospitals

“…The lessons learned from the experience with PPPs in public health systems have allowed for the implementation of elements characteristic of the free market, such as separation of purchasing and service provision functions and the transfer of risk from the financier to the provider [9]. After a decade of experience, the contribution made by PPP formulas in the healthcare sector [10,11] regarding budgetary adjustment, the improvement of public resource use and efficiency results [12] has led to a new debate.…”

Perceptions Regarding Hepatitis B and C diseases, and their Risk Factors among Ward Boys Working in Tertiary Care Hospitals of Islamabad

“…Majority of studies couldn't nd the difference between public and private health sector when it comes to the quality of one or both results are mixed as to whose better. In this study, failing to achieve the self-ideals and having the emotions of futility regarding the treatment turned into frustration over the course of time (Tynkkynen and Vrangbaek, 2018).Ward-boys believed this disease came from God. They thought everyone is on high risk to get this disease.…”

Levels, trends and determinants of technical efficiency of general hospitals in Uganda: data envelopment analysis and Tobit regression analysis

“…Further analysis of how the most efficient hospitals mobilize, organize, deploy and manage resources and service delivery processes could guide implementation of relevant reforms across the country. The lack of statistically significant difference in the efficiency of public and PNFP hospitals is not in agreement with majority of studies which show that public hospitals are more efficient than private ones because of having better input-mix, formal decisionmaking ability, regulated pricing of services and payment mechanisms [43][44][45]. The average VRS TE score of 69% means that on average, 31% of the general hospitals were VRS inefficient and could use 31% less resources to generate the same volume of outputs they are currently producing to remain relatively efficient.…”