National healthcare system performance in- dex: methodological approaches and results for Russia

 
PIIS020736760018656-0-1
DOI10.31857/S020736760018656-0
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Chief Researcher
Affiliation: Institute of Economics Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS)
Address: Moscow, Russia
Occupation: Нead of the center
Affiliation: Centre for Economic Theory of Social Sector of Institute of Economy RAS
Address: Moscow, Russia
Journal nameObshchestvo i ekonomika
EditionIssue 2
Pages31-45
Abstract

The provision of comprehensive and high-quality services is one of the most important aims of the healthcare system. This important task can be accomplished by continuously evaluating and improving the performance of the health care service. The purpose of our study is to propose and to test the methodology for evaluation the performance of the healthcare system in Russia. The methodology is based on the construction of a composite index - an integrated indicator that aggregates four main aspects of the healthcare system (accessibility, financing, responsiveness, outcome), measured by nineteen indicators. The information base of study is not only objective, but also subjective statistical data (data from special surveys). It was established that in general for the period 2000-2017 healthcare system performance improved by 8%. The aspects and indicators contributed to this process were identified. Of the four aspects, improvement has occurred in two. Of the nineteen indicators nine improved, and, accordingly, ten worsened. The main contribution to improving of the healthcare system performance was made by such aspect as “Responsiveness of the healthcare system” (+64%), followed by “Outcome of the healthcare system” (+12%). The worst situation is in the areas of “Financing of the healthcare system” (-26%) and “Accessibility of the healthcare system” (–17%). Despite the difficulties and limitations met by the authors, attempts to build composite indexes are seemed to be a promising approach for assessing the performance of the healthcare system, since they are easier to interpret; make it relatively easy to track progress over time using just one indicator, rather than multiple indicators; identify problem areas that require changes to improve performance; allow to draw public attention to industry problems; can stimulate the search for better analysis methods and statistics of better quality.

Keywordshealthcare system; healthcare system performance assessment; composite index; Russia
Received16.02.2022
Publication date18.02.2022
Number of characters21008
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 283

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Arah O.A., Westert G.P., Hurst J., Klazinga N.S. A conceptual framework for the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators project // International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2006. 18(1). P. 5–13.

2. WHO. Health system performance assessment: A tool for health governance in the 21st century. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. 2012.

3. Jacobs R., Goddard M., Smith P. C. Public services: are composite measures a robust reflection of performance in the public sector? // No. 016cherp. Centre for Health Economics. University of York; 2006.

4. WHO. The world health report 2000 – Health systems: improving performance // Geneva: World Health Organization. 2000.

5. Miller L.J., Lu W. These Are the World’s Healthiest Nations // Bloomberg 24.02.2019.

6. Stebbins S., Sauter M.B. The Most (and Least) Healthy Countries in the World // The 24/7 Wall St. 11.04.2018.

7. Björnberg A., Phang A.Y. Euro Health Consumer Index // Health Consumer Powerhouse. 2019.

8. Schneider E.C., Sarnak D.O., Squires D., Shah A., Doty M.M. Mirror, Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care. The Commonwealth Fund. 2017.

9. Miller L.J., Lu W. These Are the Economies with the most (and least) efficient health care. Bloomberg. 19.09.2018.

10. United Health Foundation. America’s Health Rankings. Annual Report 2018. 2018.

11. University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. County Health Rankings Key Findings 2019. 2019.

12. Appleby J., Mulligan J. How well is the NHS performing? A composite performance indicator based on public consultation // London: King’s Fund. 2000.

13. Jacobs R., Goddard M., Smith P. Measuring performance: an examination of composite performance indicators: A report for the Department of Health. York: Centre for Health Economics. 2004.

14. OECD. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. Methodology and user guide. 2008.

15. Fekri O, Macarayan ER, Klazinga N. Health system performance assessment in the WHO European Region: which domains and indicators have been used by Member States for its measurement? Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. 2018.

16. Smith P.C., Papanicolas I. Sravnenie deyatel'nosti sistem zdravookhraneniya kak instrument vliyaniya na povestku dnya v oblasti politiki, informatsionnogo obespecheniya i nauchnykh issledovanij. Kratkoe izlozhenie printsipov № 4. // Kopengagen: VOZ, Evropejskoe regional'noe byuro. 2012.

17. Gravelle H.S., Backhouse M.E. International cross-section analysis of the determination of mortality // Soc Sci Med. 1987. 25(5). P. 427–441.

18. Nolte E., McKee M., Evans D., Karanikolos M. Saving lives? The contribution of health care to population health / Figueras J., McKee M. (Eds.) Health systems, health, wealth and societal well-being: assessing the case for investing in health systems // New York: McGraw-Hill International. 2012.

19. Doll R., Peto R. The Causes of Cancer // Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1981. 66 (Appendix E). P.1292–1305.

20. Law M., Wald N. Why Heart Disease Mortality Is Low in France: The Time Lag Explanation // British Medical Journal. 1999/ 318(7196). P. 1471–1476.

21. Idler EL, Benyamini Y. Community studies reporting association between self-rated health and mortality // Res Aging. 1999. 21(3). P. 392–401.

22. Lalonde M. A new perspective on the health of Canadians; a working document // Ottawa: Department of National Health and Welfare. 1974.

23. McKeown T. Modern rise of population // London: Hodder & Stoughton Educ.. 1976.

24. Colgrove J. The McKeown thesis: a historical controversy and its enduring influence // American Journal of Public Health. 2002. 92(5). P.725–729.

25. Nixon J., Ulmann P. The relationship between health care expenditure and health outcomes // European Journal of Health Economics. 2006. 7(1). P. 7-18.

26. Or Z., Wang J., Jamison D. International differences in the impact of doctors on health: a multilevel analysis of OECD countries // Journal of Health Economics. 2005. 24(3). P.531-560.

27. Sukhanova L.P., Bushmeleva N.N., Sorokina Z.Kh. Mladencheskaya smertnost' v Rossii s pozitsij dostovernosti ee registratsii // Sotsial'nye aspekty zdorov'ya naseleniya. 2012. 6(28).

28. Al'bitskij V.Yu., Terletskaya R.N. Mladencheskaya smertnost' v Rossijskoj Federatsii v usloviyakh novykh trebovanij k registratsii rozhdeniya // Problemy sotsial'noj gigieny, zdravookhraneniya i istorii meditsiny. 2016. 24(6). S. 340-345.

29. Zakharov S.V. (Red.) Naselenie Rossii 2015 / Dvadtsat' tretij ezhegodnyj demograficheskij doklad // M.: Izd. dom Vysshej shkoly ehkonomiki. 2017.

30. Zakharov S.V. (Red.) Naselenie Rossii 2016 / Dvadtsat' chetvertyj ezhegodnyj demograficheskij doklad // M.: Izd. dom Vysshej shkoly ehkonomiki. 2018.

31. Prokhorenko S. Informatizatsiya zdravookhraneniya // Vysshaya shkola organizatsii i upravleniya zdravookhraneniem. Analitika i stat'i. 17.09.2018.

32. RBK. Starost' i «drugie»: chto ne tak so statistikoj smertnosti rossiyan. 21.12.2018.

33. Lomskaya T. Rossiyane stali chasche umirat' ot redkikh boleznej i neustanovlennykh prichin // Vedomosti. 11.03.2018.

34. Khasanova R. Smertnost' v Rossii: o chem govoryat dannye 2017 g. / Monitoring ehkonomicheskoj situatsii v Rossii: tendentsii i vyzovy sotsial'no-ehkonomicheskogo razvitiya. Gurevich V.S., Drobyshevskij S.M., Kadochnikov P.A., Kolesnikov A.V., Mau V.A., Sinel'nikov-Murylev S.G. (Red.) // Institut ehkonomicheskoj politiki imeni E.T. Gajdara. Rossijskaya akademiya narodnogo khozyajstva i gosudarstvennoj sluzhby pri Prezidente Rossijskoj Federatsii. №2(63). 2018.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up