This article develops and analyzes patient register-based measures of quality for the major Nordic countries. Previous studies show that Finnish hospitals have significantly higher average productivity than hospitals in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway and also a substantial variation within each country. This paper examines whether quality differences can form part of the explanation and attempts to uncover quality-cost trade-offs.Data on costs and discharges in each diagnosis-related group for 160 acute hospitals in 2008-2009 were collected. Patient register-based measures of quality such as readmissions, mortality (in hospital or outside), and patient safety indices were developed and case-mix adjusted. Productivity is estimated using bootstrapped data envelopment analysis.Results indicate that case-mix adjustment is important, and there are significant differences in the case-mix adjusted performance measures as well as in productivity both at the national and hospital levels. For most quality indicators, the performance measures reveal room for improvement. There is a weak but statistical significant trade-off between productivity and inpatient readmissions within 30 days but a tendency that hospitals with high 30-day mortality also have higher costs. Hence, no clear cost-quality trade-off pattern was discovered. Patient registers can be used and developed to improve future quality and cost comparisons.

This paper estimates cost efficiency scores using the bootstrap bias-corrected procedure, including variables for teaching and research, for the performance of university hospitals in the Nordic countries. Previous research has shown that hospital provision of research and education interferes with patient care routines and inflates the costs of health care services, turning university hospitals into outliers in comparative productivity and efficiency analyses. The organisation of patient care, medical education and clinical research as well as available data at the university hospital level are highly similar in the Nordic countries, creating a data set of comparable decision-making units suitable for a cross-country cost efficiency analysis. The results demonstrate significant differences in university hospital cost efficiency when variables for teaching and research are entered into the analysis, both between and within the Nordic countries. The results of a second-stage analysis show that the most important explanatory variables are geographical location of the hospital and the share of discharges with a high case weight. However, a substantial amount of the variation in cost efficiency at the university hospital level remains unexplained.

This article focuses on describing the methodological challenges intrinsic in international comparative studies of hospital productivity and how these challenges have been addressed within the context of hospital comparisons in the Nordic countries. The hospital sectors in the Nordic countries are suitable for international comparison as they exhibit similar structures in the organisation for hospital care, hold administrative data of good quality at the hospital level, apply a similar secondary patient classification system, and use similar definitions of operating costs. The results of a number of studies have suggested marked differences in hospital cost efficiency and hospital productivity across the Nordic countries and the Finnish hospitals have the highest estimates in all the analyses. Explanatory factors that were tested and seemed to be of limited importance included institutional, structural and technical. A factor that is yet to be included in the Nordic hospital productivity comparison is the quality of care. Patient-level data available from linkable national registers in each country enable the development of quality indicators and will be included in the forthcoming hospital productivity studies within the context of the EuroHOPE (European health care outcomes, performance and efficiency) project.

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of hospital care in four Nordic countries: Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Using national discharge registries and cost data from hospitals, cost efficiency in the production of somatic hospital care was calculated for public hospitals. Data were collected using harmonised definitions of inputs and outputs for 184 hospitals and data envelopment analysis was used to calculate Farrell efficiency estimates for the year 2002. Results suggest that there were marked differences in the average hospital efficiency between Nordic countries. In 2002, average efficiency was markedly higher in Finland compared to Norway and Sweden. This study found differences in cost efficiency that cannot be explained by input prices or differences in coding practices. More analysis is needed to reveal the causes of large efficiency disparities between Nordic hospitals.

No abstract