Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19469458›Full record

ArticleHealth care management science2009

The economics of cancer care: longitudinal changes in provider efficiency.

James R Langabeer, Yasar A Ozcan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care management science, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James R LangabeerDepartment of Management and Policy Sciences, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA. James.R.Langabeer@uth.tmc.edu
Yasar A Ozcan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Renewed debate over competition in healthcare suggests that greater specialization is good for the health economy. In essence, greater specialization is hypothesized to lead to lower average costs, due to learning curve effects, scale, or other operating efficiencies. This hypothesis was tested in oncology care, since this disease group is one of the few with existing specialized cancer centers already in place. Data envelopment analysis (DEA), and specifically a longitudinal Malmquist index over a 5-year period was applied to the major, specialized inpatient cancer centers to determine if these specialized centers achieve higher productivity over time, and if scale leads to higher operating efficiency. Results suggest policy and payer implications since these DRG-exempt hospitals may not be improving their technical efficiency over time. Despite advancements in technology and greater scale, the average efficiency of cancer care has marginally declined. Similarly, when compared to other hospitals with greater numbers of other service offerings, oncology care has not benefited from increasing returns to scale.

Indexed as

Efficiency, OrganizationalCancer Care FacilitiesHospital Bed CapacityHumansMedical OncologyOutpatientsPersonnel, HospitalProspective Payment SystemUnited States

Identifiers

PMID19469458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.