Is capital investment in Australian hospitals effectively funding patient access to efficient public hospital care?

Abstract

This study asks 'Is capital investment in Australian public hospitals effectively funding patient access to efficient hospital care?' The study drew information from semistructured interviews with senior health infrastructure officials, literature reviews and World Health Organization (WHO) reports. To identify which systems most effectively fund patient access to efficient hospitals, capital allocation systems for 17 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries were assessed. Australian government objectives (equitable access to clinically appropriate, efficient, sustainable, innovative, patient-based) for acute health services are not directly addressed within Australian capital allocation systems for hospitals. Instead, Australia retains a prioritised hospital investment system for institutionally based asset replacement and capital planning, aligned with budgetary and political priorities. Australian systems of capital allocation for public hospitals were found not to match health system objectives for allocative, productive and dynamic efficiency. Australia scored below average in funding patient access to efficient hospitals. The OECD countries most effectively funding patient access to efficient hospital care have transitioned to diagnosis-related group (DRG) aligned capital funding. Measures of effective capital allocation for hospitals, patient access and efficiency found mixed government-private-public partnerships performed poorly with inferior access to capital than DRG-aligned systems, with the worst performing systems based on private finance. Australian capital allocation systems for hospitals do not meet Australian government standards for the health system. Transition to a diagnosis-based system of capital allocation would align capital allocation with government standards and has been found to improve patient access to efficient hospital care. Very little is known about the effectiveness of Australian capital allocation for public hospitals. In Australia, capital is rarely discussed in the context of efficiency, although poor built capital and inappropriate technologies are acknowledged as limitations to improving efficiency. Capital allocated for public hospitals by state and territory is no longer reported by Australian Institute of Health and Welfare due to problems with data reliability. International comparative reviews of capital funding for hospitals have not included Australia. Most comparative efficiency reviews for health avoid considering capital allocation. The national review of hospitals found capital allocation information makes it difficult to determine 'if we have it right' in terms of investment for health services. Problems with capital allocation systems for public hospitals have been identified within state-based reviews of health service delivery. The Productivity Commission was unable to identify the cost of capital used in treating patients in Australian public hospitals. Instead, building and equipment depreciation plus the user cost of capital ...

How can the healthcare system deliver sustainable performance? A scoping review

“…Several articles defined SPHS in terms of fiscal sustainability 24 32–37. Examples included discussions of sustainability of rural primary care services in the face of ongoing policy change to reimbursement and practice incentives,36 adoption of new funding models to ensure availability of medicines24 and hospital capital investments to improve patient access to care 35. Articles also discussed the importance of balancing financial interests with social and ecological interests 38.…”

“…Sustainability is most often framed in terms of fiscal/financial or economic sustainability4 24 32–37 49…”

Persistent and Transient Inefficiency of Australian States and Territories in Providing Public Hospital Services: An Application of Bayesian Stochastic Finite Mixture Frontier Analysis

“…In another study on Australian public hospitals, Kerr and Hendrie (2018) attributed the current hospital investment system based on hospital asset replacement rather than the diagnosis‐related group aligned capital funding to be a driving force behind public hospitals’ inefficiency. The study also highlighted that older medical equipment’s replacement and development often receive relatively less funding than other areas.…”

The scale and structure of government financial investment in traditional medicine based on optimal efficiency: evidence from public traditional Chinese medicine hospitals (PTHs) of Henan province, China

“…Considering the basic characteristics of PTHs and avoiding the impact of strong relationship among indicators, the study selected variables based on importance and availability [21]. According to the requirements for the BEG and SFA models [14,15,18], this study selected indicators from seven aspects of revenue, assets, technology, financial investment, personnel, service provision and effect.…”