Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Paul schreyer


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Paul schreyer

  1. 1. Jornadas de economia de la salud June 2010 Valencia Measuring health services (in the national accounts) Paul Schreyer, OECD
  2. 2. Background • Much effort spent on measuring the value of GDP at current prices • Even more important: volumes. • Difficult when – Products are complex with changing quality – There are no economically significant prices
  3. 3. Background • Health services are a prime example: – Rapid technological change – Provision often by non-market suppliers • So how are health services measured in the NA? • And should this be done differently?
  4. 4. Background • Recent work: – Eurostat (2001) & EU Regulation – Atkinson report (2005) and work by UKCMGA – United States: Triplett and Bosworth 2004, Abraham and Mackie 2006 – OECD: • Handbook 2010 • Data development: health PPPs – Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission (September 2009)
  5. 5. This presentation • A few concepts • Capturing health services and quality change • Conclusions
  6. 6. Terminology • Inputs • Outputs – Processes without explicit quality adjustment – Processes with explicit quality adjustment • Outcomes – Direct outcomes – Indirect outcomes • Best explained by way of a graph
  7. 7. Inputs Outputs Outcomes Process without Process with Direct Indirect explicit quality explicit quality outcome outcome adjustment adjustment Example Example education: education: quality- Knowledge number of adjusted number and skills as pupils/pupil hours of pupils/pupil measured by Future real by level of hours by level of scores earnings, education education growth rate Labour, capital, of GDP, intermediate well- inputs Example health: rounded Example health: quality-adjusted citizens number of number of Health status etc. complete of population complete treatments by treatments by type type of disease of disease Inhereted skills, socio-economic Environmental factors background, etc. Hygene, lifestyle, infrastructure etc.
  8. 8. Terminology →National accounts should strive at measuring outputs →in the form of quality-adjusted processes →or as the marginal contribution to outcomes →Outcomes (as used here) is indicative of results of the health system as a whole →Although outcome ≠ output, they are not independent
  9. 9. Non-market production • Nothing special in terms of the basic service provided, but mode of provision is different • In particular: prices not economically significant • Traditional way of dealing with this: – Value of output = value of inputs (sum of costs) – Volume of output = volume of inputs – Problem: defines away productivity change
  10. 10. From inputs to outputs • Efforts to capture volume change of outputs, not of inputs • What exactly is output of health industry? • Target definition: • Health service = complete treatment of a disease or medical service to prevent a disease • But what exactly is a ‘complete treatment’? • And how to deal with quality change?
  11. 11. • The long (& still incomplete) answer is here: OECD (2010); Towards Measuring the Volume Output of Education and Health Services: A Handbook • The short answer in the slides to follow.
  12. 12. Completed treatment • Pathway that an individual takes through heterogeneous institutions in the health industry in order to receive full and final treatment for a disease or condition. • Not easily applicable, conceptually and empirically: – E.g., chronic diseases, data limitations • After reality check: treatment of one episode of disease by a particular institution • Main point: towards disease-based estimates
  13. 13. Measuring treatments • Required to construct disease-based output measures: – number of treatments by type of disease or – costs per treatment by type of disease • Administrative sources (e.g. DRGs) have significantly facilitated access to such information (Germany, Denmark, Australia, France,…) • Volume indices can then be constructed: • Weighted average of # of treatments • Weights: cost share of type of disease
  14. 14. Denmark: Input price index and output price index for general hospital services based on ~ 800 DRGs 120.0 115.0 110.0 105.0 Input based Output based 100.0 95.0 90.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
  15. 15. Quality change • Via stratification (implicit quality adjustment) • Explicit quality adjustment • Capturing quality by measuring marginal contribution to outcomes
  16. 16. Capturing quality change via stratification (1) • Basic idea: matching products: services are stratified such that only similar services are compared • Criterion for classification: similarity in effects on patients, and not similarity in how services are produced • Example: different treatments for the same disease (in a particular type of establishment) should be in one stratum, and not similar medical procedures for different diseases • Implies: most detailed stratification = not necessarily best choice with cost weights and imperfect markets
  17. 17. Capturing quality change via stratification (2) • 2 treatments, traditional and laser surgery Same effect on outcome Laser is cheaper Laser surgery diffuses progressively Traditional surgery Laser surgery Period 0 Period 1 Period 2 Period 0 Period 1 Period 2 Unit cost 100 100 100 - 90 90 Number of interventions 50 40 5 0 10 45 Total cost 5000 4000 500 0 900 4050 Laspeyres volume index period 1 to period 2: [sT(5/40)+sL(45/10)]-1=-7.1% where sT=82% and sL=18% are the period 1 cost shares
  18. 18. Capturing quality change via stratification (3) • Measured output declines! →Counter-intuitive • Problem: 2 medical procedures have been treated as 2 different services • Note also implicit assumption: – consumer valuation of the two ‘products’ is captured by the relative unit costs, – so if laser surgery is cheaper than traditional surgery, this method implicitly quality-adjusts downward the quantity of laser surgery when it is combined with traditional surgery.
  19. 19. Capturing quality change via stratification (4) • In a perfect market, the price of the traditional treatment would instantaneously adjust downward and/or traditional treatment would disappear • In practice and in a non-market context, this does not happen →2 treatments should be treated as the same product →no cost weighting, volume change = zero
  20. 20. Capturing quality change via stratification (5) • A more sophisticated method would be to keep both treatments in the same stratum but explicitly adjust one of the treatments • For example put a coefficient of 0.8 on the traditional treatment • Such adjustments would have to rely on medical effectiveness studies • There is some way to go before practical implementation • For more on this, see Triplett (2001): What’s different about health? Human repair and car repair in national accounts and in national health accounts
  21. 21. Capturing quality change via stratification (6) • Note: even if we do not explicitly quality-adjust products, the decision how to group them cannot be made without some reference to effects on outcome • Otherwise, no statement can be made about substitutability of services and how they should be classified • Nearly everything that has been said about quality adjustment via stratification applies also to market production • Only difference: price statisticians or national accountants who have to deal with it
  22. 22. Capturing quality change via explicit adjustment • If stratification is too granular, explicit quality adjustment may be needed • Basic problems: – Quality is multidimensional: how to aggregate across dimensions? (waiting times, risk of suboptimal treatment...) – How to aggregate change in quality variable(s) with change in quantity (process) variables?
  23. 23. Capturing quality change via measuring marginal contribution to outcome • Example: QUALYs, DALYs • Problems: – Making sure factors other than health care are controlled for; – Timing – lag between service and outcome – Putting monetary value on human lives • Very useful avenue of research but unlikely to be implemented in official statistics soon
  24. 24. Conclusions (1) • Output and outcome are different and should not be confused • National accounts and productivity studies of establishments need measures of output, not of outcome • But output and outcome are not independent • In the presence of quality change, all existing methods require some implicit or explicit information or reasoning about outcome. • Output or medical services should be based on treatment of disease unit of production
  25. 25. Conclusions (2) • Problems of quality adjustment arise whether services are provided by market or non-market producers. • A pragmatic approach will be called for to proceed with services measurement – no reason to approach every type of service with the same method for quality adjustment – methodologies should be robust and transparent
  26. 26. Conclusions (3) • Measuring output for complex services is difficult • But conclusion should not be that it is simply too difficult to do anything. • Visible progress in the area of health due to availability of administrative data • It may take a while before consensual and internationally comparable methods are agreed upon but active research and data development is vital to achieve this objective.
  27. 27. Thank you for your attention!