Dechen Kong, Nan Jiang, Xiaomin He, Jing Yuan, Qing Du, Wu Lian
{"title":"Enhancing Health Productivity in China: A Decade of Measurement and Regional Insights (2010-2020).","authors":"Dechen Kong, Nan Jiang, Xiaomin He, Jing Yuan, Qing Du, Wu Lian","doi":"10.2147/RMHP.S500994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Enhancing health productivity is a pressing priority to promote the Healthy China Initiative. This study aims to assess the efficiency of health production and to analyze the disparities in efficiency across regions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multi-dimensional approach is used to assess the health efficiency of 31 provinces in China over the period 2010 to 2020. The analysis incorporates the conventional BCC model, the super-efficient SBM model, and the Malmquist index model within the framework of DEA modeling. And using the Dagum Gini coefficient to further analyze the differences in health productivity of China.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The BCC model calculated China's comprehensive health production efficiency in 2020 to be 0.732. The SBM model assessed the average health productivity value among China's provinces in 2020, revealing Guangdong as the highest (2.276) and Qinghai as the lowest (0.351). The average value of China's Malmquist Index from 2010 to 2020 was 1.002, indicating a slight overall improvement in health production efficiency. Furthermore, the score of technological change and technological efficiency change in five provinces were more than 1. Gini coefficient had obvious downward trend from 2010 to 2020, and there was a lower level in the northeastern (0.055) and eastern (0.0989) regions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Though the whole health productivity of China has been on the rise, health production efficiency in many provinces still needs to be improved. Inequities in health services provision persist, particularly between the eastern and western regions. The government should play a significant role in establishing standardized criteria for regular evaluation of health production efficiency levels. It's suggested to utilize digital health technologies to facilitate the exchange of information among different regions in China, thereby fostering collaborative efforts to improve overall health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":56009,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","volume":"18 ","pages":"869-889"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11913178/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S500994","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Enhancing health productivity is a pressing priority to promote the Healthy China Initiative. This study aims to assess the efficiency of health production and to analyze the disparities in efficiency across regions.
Methods: A multi-dimensional approach is used to assess the health efficiency of 31 provinces in China over the period 2010 to 2020. The analysis incorporates the conventional BCC model, the super-efficient SBM model, and the Malmquist index model within the framework of DEA modeling. And using the Dagum Gini coefficient to further analyze the differences in health productivity of China.
Results: The BCC model calculated China's comprehensive health production efficiency in 2020 to be 0.732. The SBM model assessed the average health productivity value among China's provinces in 2020, revealing Guangdong as the highest (2.276) and Qinghai as the lowest (0.351). The average value of China's Malmquist Index from 2010 to 2020 was 1.002, indicating a slight overall improvement in health production efficiency. Furthermore, the score of technological change and technological efficiency change in five provinces were more than 1. Gini coefficient had obvious downward trend from 2010 to 2020, and there was a lower level in the northeastern (0.055) and eastern (0.0989) regions.
Conclusion: Though the whole health productivity of China has been on the rise, health production efficiency in many provinces still needs to be improved. Inequities in health services provision persist, particularly between the eastern and western regions. The government should play a significant role in establishing standardized criteria for regular evaluation of health production efficiency levels. It's suggested to utilize digital health technologies to facilitate the exchange of information among different regions in China, thereby fostering collaborative efforts to improve overall health outcomes.
期刊介绍:
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. Specific topics covered in the journal include:
Public and community health
Policy and law
Preventative and predictive healthcare
Risk and hazard management
Epidemiology, detection and screening
Lifestyle and diet modification
Vaccination and disease transmission/modification programs
Health and safety and occupational health
Healthcare services provision
Health literacy and education
Advertising and promotion of health issues
Health economic evaluations and resource management
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy focuses on human interventional and observational research. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and extended reports. Case reports will only be considered if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.