Evaluation of program performance and expenditures in a report of performance measures (RPM) via a case study of two Florida county tuberculosis programs
AbstractHealth Department (HD) managers at both state and local levels are in desperate need of tools to assist in monitoring and evaluating programs. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility and utility of linking program performance scores and expenditures into a Report of Performance Measures (RPM). We analyzed secondary data on performance indicators, selected by HD staff, and expenditures, related to six surveillance activities, from two, similar, high-incidence, tuberculosis (TB) programs in Florida from 2002 to 2003. We compared the findings between the county HDs as an illustration of basic cost-effectiveness benchmarking, based on the cost-effectiveness grid. Data included here provide examples of: (1) two instances in which one county was operating relatively inefficiently compared to the other; (2) two instances in which performance and expenditures were similar for the counties; and (3) two instances in which one county spent more for higher performance scores than the other. These data illustrate how the RPM can be used to facilitate benchmarking, a basic evaluation tool. They also demonstrate ways to identify potential operational inefficiencies in a single time period and ultimately over time. It is thus likely to be a feasible and useful management tool.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Evaluation and Program Planning.
Volume (Year): 33 (2010)
Issue (Month): 4 (November)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan
Program performance Benchmarking Cost-effectiveness Evaluation Management tools;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Subramanian, Sujha & Ekwueme, Donatus U. & Gardner, James G. & Bapat, Bela & Kramer, Caren, 2008. "Identifying and controlling for program-level differences in comparative cost analysis: Lessons from the economic evaluation of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 136-144, May.
- Schalock, Robert L. & Bonham, Gordon S., 2003. "Measuring outcomes and managing for results," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 229-235, August.
- Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.