IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Productivity and patient satisfaction in primary care—Conflicting or compatible goals?

Listed author(s):
  • Glenngård, Anna Häger

Following recent reforms in Swedish primary care, providers are accountable to both citizens and county councils, in their role as payers. Productivity and quality measurement is fundamental for ensuring health care providers accountability to payers and that resources are spent as intended. The purpose was to study productivity and patient satisfaction in Swedish primary care. One measure of productivity capturing volume of visits and one measure capturing individual's judgment about the quality of services in relation to allocated resources was estimated. The potential conflict between the two measures and variation with respect to different factors was analyzed. There was a great variation in both measures of productivity. No conflict between the two measures of productivity was found. Thus, most providers could increase their volume of services without adverse effects for the quality and vice versa. Providers are however faced with different conditions. Traditional productivity measures are not enough to assess whether allocated resources are used according to set priorities and generates value for money. Information about the length and content of visits and the distribution of services produced is also needed, in particular to assess if resources allocated based on expected great needs among certain groups actually benefits those individuals. Effects of services produced are also needed. This is particularly important to assess if resources allocated based on expected great needs among certain groups actually benefits those individuals.

If 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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013001097
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Health Policy.

Volume (Year): 111 (2013)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 157-165

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:111:y:2013:i:2:p:157-165
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.012
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as
in new window


  1. Esmeralda Ramalho & Joaquim Ramalho & Pedro Henriques, 2010. "Fractional regression models for second stage DEA efficiency analyses," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 239-255, December.
  2. Reid, R. & MacWilliam, L. & Roos, N.P. & Bogdanovich, B. & Black, C., 1999. "Measuring Morbidity in Populations: Performance of the John Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group (ACG) Case-Mix Adjustment System in Manitoba," Centre for Health Services and Policy Research 99:9, University of British Columbia - Centre for Health Services and Policy Research..
  3. Scott, Anthony, 2000. "Economics of general practice," Handbook of Health Economics,in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 22, pages 1175-1200 Elsevier.
  4. Bruce Hollingsworth, 2008. "The measurement of efficiency and productivity of health care delivery," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(10), pages 1107-1128.
  5. Carol Propper, 2013. "Competition, Incentives and the English NHS," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 11(1), pages 16-20, April.
  6. McDonald, John, 2009. "Using least squares and tobit in second stage DEA efficiency analyses," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(2), pages 792-798, September.
  7. Smith, Peter C. & Anell, Anders & Busse, Reinhard & Crivelli, Luca & Healy, Judith & Lindahl, Anne Karin & Westert, Gert & Kene, Tobechukwu, 2012. "Leadership and governance in seven developed health systems," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 37-49.
  8. Le Grand, Julian, 2009. "Choice and competition in publicly funded health care," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(04), pages 479-488, October.
  9. Bevan, Gwyn & Helderman, Jan-Kees & Wilsford, David, 2010. "Changing choices in health care: implications for equity, efficiency and cost," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(03), pages 251-267, July.
  10. Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul W., 2007. "Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 31-64, January.
  11. Glenngård, Anna H. & Anell, Anders & Beckman, Anders, 2011. "Choice of primary care provider: Results from a population survey in three Swedish counties," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 31-37.
  12. Cutler, David, 2002. "Equality, Efficiency, and Market Fundamentals: The Dynamics of International Medical Care Reform," Scholarly Articles 2640584, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  13. Anell, Anders, 2011. "Choice and privatisation in Swedish primary care," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(04), pages 549-569, September.
  14. David M. Cutler, 2002. "Equality, Efficiency, and Market Fundamentals: The Dynamics of International Medical-Care Reform," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 881-906, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:111:y:2013:i:2:p:157-165. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

or ()

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.