Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 8/2016

01-11-2016 | Original Paper

Is higher nursing home quality more costly?

Authors: L. Di Giorgio, M. Filippini, G. Masiero

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 8/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Widespread issues regarding quality in nursing homes call for an improved understanding of the relationship with costs. This relationship may differ in European countries, where care is mainly delivered by nonprofit providers. In accordance with the economic theory of production, we estimate a total cost function for nursing home services using data from 45 nursing homes in Switzerland between 2006 and 2010. Quality is measured by means of clinical indicators regarding process and outcome derived from the minimum data set. We consider both composite and single quality indicators. Contrary to most previous studies, we use panel data and control for omitted variables bias. This allows us to capture features specific to nursing homes that may explain differences in structural quality or cost levels. Additional analysis is provided to address simultaneity bias using an instrumental variable approach. We find evidence that poor levels of quality regarding outcome, as measured by the prevalence of severe pain and weight loss, lead to higher costs. This may have important implications for the design of payment schemes for nursing homes.
Footnotes
1
For a more detailed description of the Swiss nursing home sector, see [2].
 
2
Other well-recognized definitions are provided by the UK Department of Health [5], the Council of Europe [6], and the World Health Organization (WHO) [7]. For a detailed exposition of the most influential and known definitions of quality, see [8].
 
3
Most of our quality indicators include 173 observations. However, for a few of them, information was collected for only two years. To maximize the number of observations used in the following econometric analysis, we dropped four single quality indicators with missing values (see Table 4 for details).
 
4
In a non-competitive environment such as the Swiss one, there is no reason to assume that nursing homes minimize costs. In this case, the estimated costs function is a “behavioral cost function” [55] and can still be used to make a comparison among firms.
 
5
Note that this is not the Resource Utilization Group (RUG)’s classification system of residents. As compared to the RUG system, our case-mix measure is not derived from the MDS. The main advantage is that case-mix differences are less likely to reflect quality levels.
 
6
In a preliminary analysis, we also estimated: (1) a full translog cost model and (2) a hybrid translog cost model. In the hybrid translog cost function, quality indicators were included only in linear form. The results of the full translog were not satisfactory, probably due to multicollinearity problems and the loss of degrees of freedom. The results of the hybrid cost function were very similar to those obtained with the log-log functional form.
 
7
Squared terms for quality indicators were also considered in a separate analysis to test the presence of a non-linear relationship between quality and costs. The results did not show evidence of non-linear relationship.
 
8
The cost function is linear homogenous of degree 1 in input prices when a 10 % increase in all input prices leads to a 10 % increase in total cost.
 
9
The Durbin–Wu–Hausman test performed using the lagged SR as instrumental variable does not reject exogeneity at the \(99\, \%\) level.
 
10
Four of these indicators are risk-adjusted based on the stratification approach. This means that they are calculated separately for high-risk and low-risk patients. In these cases, we use the low-risk indicators.
 
11
Kezdi [58] states that a sample of 50 clusters is close enough to infinity for accurate inference if the number of observations per cluster is not too small. A cluster is considered small if it contains less than five observations [59]. In our case, the significance of the coefficients remains unchanged when standard errors are clustered.
 
12
Note that the correlation between outcome quality indicators in Model 3 is relatively low (0.17). Clearly, the correlation between outcome quality indicators obtained using PCA (Model 1) is zero, because different components are orthogonal.
 
13
For comparison purposes, we also ran RE regressions without the institutional form (IF). The size of the coefficients remains unchanged (estimates not reported).
 
14
The F diagnostic for weak instruments for the joint significance of the instruments in first-stage regressions does not recognize situations in which some instruments are good while others are weak.
 
15
The region considered in the analysis is divided into eight districts: Mendrisio, Lugano, Vallemaggia, Locarno, Bellinzona, Riviera, Blenio, and Leventina. Given that only a few nursing homes are located in northern districts, Vallemaggia, Leventina, and Blenio are pooled together.
 
16
Lagged values are an attractive instrument due to the high correlation with the endogenous variable. Nevertheless, caution is necessary in the presence of serial correlation in the data, as this may invalidate the instruments [67]. To test for autocorrelation in the panel data set, we use the test developed by Wooldridge [68, 69].
 
17
See, for instance, Hahn et al. [70], for a discussion about weak instruments in the econometric literature.
 
Literature
1.
Riedel, M., Kraus, M.: The organisation of formal long-term care for the elderly: results from the 21 European country studies in the ANCIEN Project. Social Welfare Policies, ENEPRI Research report (2011)
2.
Di Giorgio, L., Filippini, M., Masiero, G.: Implications of global budget payment system on nursing home costs. Health Policy 115, 237–248 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
3.
Wodchis, W.P., Teare, G.F., Anderson, G.M.: Cost and quality evidence from Ontario long term care hospitals. Med. Care 45, 981–988 (2007)CrossRefPubMed
4.
Lohr, K.N. (ed.): Medicare: A Strategy for Quality Assurance, vol. 1. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1990)
5.
A First Class Service—Quality in the New NHS. Department of Health, London (1997)
6.
Council of Europe.: Recommendation on Development and Implementation of Quality Improvement Systems (QIS) in Health Care and Explanatory Memorandum (41st Meeting, 24–26 June). Council of Europe, Strasbourg (1997)
7.
WHO.: The World Health Report 2000: health systems: improving performance. World Health Organization, Geneva (2000)
8.
Legido-Quigley, H., McKee, M., Nolte, E., Glinos, I.A.: Assuring the quality of health care in the European Union. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies: Observatory Studies Series No. 12 (2008)
9.
10.
Zimmerman, D.: Development and testing of nursing home quality indicators. Health Care Financ. Rev. 16(4), 107–127 (1995)PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Zimmerman, D.: Improving nursing home quality of care through outcomes data: the MDS quality indicators. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 18, 250–257 (2003)CrossRefPubMed
12.
Berg, K., Mor, V., Morris, J., Murphy, K.M., Moore, T., Harris, Y.: Identification and evaluation of existing nursing homes quality indicators. Health Care Financ. Rev. 23(4), 19–36 (2002)PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Li, Y., Cai, X., Ye, Z., Glance, G.G., Harrington, C., Mukamel, D.B.: Satisfaction with Massachusetts nursing home care was generally high during 2005–2009, with some variability across facilities the productive efficiency and clinical quality of institutional long-term care for the elderly. Health Affairs 32(8), 1416–1425 (2013)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Nakrem, S., Vinsnes, A.G., Harkless, G.E., Paulsen, B., Seim, A.: Nursing sensitive quality indicators for nursing home care: International review of literature, policy and practice. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 46, 848–857 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
McKay, N.L.: Quality choice in Medicaid markets: the case of nursing homes. Quarter. Rev. Econ. Bus. 29(2), 27–40 (1989)
17.
Farsi, M., Filippini, M., Kuenzle, M.: Unobserved heterogeneity in stochastic cost frontier models: an application to Swiss nursing homes. Appl. Econ. 37, 2127–2141 (2005)CrossRef
18.
Farsi, M., Filippini, M., Lunati, D.: Economies of scale and efficiency measurement in Switzerland’s nursing homes. Swiss J. Econ. Stat. 144, 359–378 (2008)
19.
Castle, N.G., Engberg, J.: Staff turnover and quality of care in nursing homes. Med. Care 43(6), 616–626 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
20.
Castle, N.G., Engberg, J.: The influence of staffing characteristics on quality of care in nursing homes. Health Res. Educ. Trust 42(5), 1822–1847 (2007)
21.
Dormont, B., Martin, C.: Quality of service and cost-efficiency of French nursing homes. 9th European Conference on Health Economics (ECHE), Zurich, July 18–21 (2012)
22.
Spilsbury, K., Hewitt, C., Stirk, L.: The relationship between nurse staffing and quality of care in nursing homes: a systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 48, 732–750 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
23.
Rantz, M.J., Hicks, L., Grando, V., Petroski, G.F., Madsen, R.W., et al.: Nursing home quality, cost, staffing, and staff mix. Gerontologist 44(1), 24–38 (2004)CrossRefPubMed
24.
Bostick, J.E., Rantz, M.J., Flesner, M.K., Riggs, C.J.: Systematic review of studies of staffing and quality in nursing homes. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 7(6), 366–376 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
25.
Mor, V., Berg, K., Angelelli, J., Gifford, D., Morris, J., Moore, T.: The quality of quality measurement in US nursing homes. Gerontologist 43(2), 37–46 (2003)CrossRefPubMed
26.
Arling, G., Karon, S.L., Sainfort, F., Zimmerman, D.R., Ross, R.: Risk adjustment of nursing home quality indicators. Gerontologist 37(6), 757–766 (1997)CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
Zinn, J.S., Aaronson, W.E., Rosko, M.D.: The use of standardized indicators as quality improvement tools: an application in Pennsylvania nursing homes. Am. J. Med. Qual. 8, 72–78 (1993a)CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zinn, J.S., Aaronson, W.E., Rosko, M.D.: Strategic groups, performance, and strategic response in the nursing home industry. Health Service Res. 29, 187–205 (1994)
30.
Mukamel, D.B.: Risk-adjusted outcome measures and quality of care in nursing homes. Med. Care 35(4), 367–385 (1997)CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zinn, J.S., Aaronson, W.E., Rosko, M.D.: Variations in the outcomes of care provided in Pennsylvania nursing homes: facility and environmental correlates. Med. Care 31, 475–487 (1993b)CrossRefPubMed
32.
Karon, S.L., Sainfort, F., Zimmerman, D.R.: Stability of nursing home quality indicators over time. Med. Care 37(6), 570–579 (1999)CrossRefPubMed
33.
Mukamel, D.B., Glance, L.G., Li, Y., Weimer, D.L., Spector, W.D., Zinn, J.S., Mosqueda, L.: Does risk adjustment of the CMS quality measures for nursing homes matter? Med. Care 46(5), 532–541 (2008)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Gertler, P.J., Waldman, D.M.: Quality-adjusted cost functions and policy evaluation in the nursing home industry. J. Polit. Econ. 100, 1232–1256 (1992)CrossRef
35.
Carey, K.: A panel data design for estimation of hospital cost functions. Rev. Econ. Stat. 79(3), 443–453 (1997)CrossRef
36.
Konetzka, R.T., Yi, D., Norton, E.C., Kilpatrick, K.E.: Effects of Medicare payment changes on nursing home staffing and deficiencies. Health Services Res. 39, 463–488 (2004)CrossRef
37.
Harrington, C., Woolhandler, S., Mullan, J., Carrillo, H., Himmelstein, D.U.: Does investor ownership of nursing homes compromise the quality of care? Am. J. Public Health 91(9), 1452–1455 (2001)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Bowblis, J.R., Crystal, S., Intrator, O., Lucas, J.A.: Response to regulatory stringency: the case of antipsychotic medication use in nursing homes. Health Econ. 21, 977–993 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
39.
Bowblis, J.R., Lucas, J.A.: The impact of state regulations on nursing home care practices. J. Regul. Econ. 42, 52–72 (2012)CrossRef
40.
Grabowski, D.C., Feng, Z., Hirth, R.A., Rahman, M., Mor, V.: Effect of nursing home ownership on the quality of post-acute care: an instrumental variables approach. J. Health Econ. 32, 12–21 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
41.
Spector, W.D., Selden, T.M., Cohen, J.W.: The impact of ownership type on nursing home outcomes. Health Econ. 7, 639–653 (1998)CrossRefPubMed
42.
Castle, N.G., Liu, D., Engberg, J.: The association of nursing home compare quality measures with market competition and occupancy rates. J. Healthcare Qual. 30(2), 4–14 (2008)CrossRef
43.
Forder, J., Allan, S.: Competition in the English nursing homes market. PSSRU Discussion Paper 2820, University of Kent (2011)
44.
Grabowski, D.: A longitudinal study of medicaid payment, private-pay price and nursing home quality. Int. J. Health Care Financ. Econ. 4(1), 5–26 (2004)CrossRef
45.
Starkey, K.B., Weech-Maldonado, R., Mor, V.: Market competition and quality of care in the nursing home industry. J. Health Care Financ. 32(1), 67–81 (2005)
46.
Gutacker, N., Bojke, C., Daidone, S., Devlin, N.J., Parkin, D., Street, A.: Truly inefficiency or providing better quality of care? Analysing the relationship between risk-adjusted hospital costs and patients’ health outcomes. Health Econ. 22, 931–947 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
47.
Mukamel, D.B., Spector, W.D.: Nursing home costs and risk-adjusted outcome measures of quality. Med. Care 38(1), 78–89 (2000)CrossRefPubMed
48.
Laine, J., Linna, M., Häkkinen, U., Noro, A.: Measuring the productive efficiency and clinical quality of institutional long-term care for the elderly. Health Econ. 14, 245–256 (2005a)CrossRefPubMed
49.
Laine, J., Linna, M., Noro, A., Häkkinen, U.: The cost efficiency and clinical quality of institutional long-term care for the elderly. Health Care Manag. Sci. 8, 149–156 (2005b)CrossRefPubMed
50.
Weech-Maldonado, R., Shea, D., Mor, V.: The relationship between quality of care and costs in nursing homes. Am. J. Med. Qual. 21(1), 40–48 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
51.
Mor, V., Morris, J., Lipsitz, L., Fogel, B.: Benchmarking quality in nursing homes: the Q-Metrics System. Can. J. Qual. Health Care 14, 12–17 (1998)CrossRef
52.
Institute of Medicine.: Performance Measurement: Accelerating Improvement. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2006)
53.
Abdi, H., Williams, L.J.: Principal component analysis. WIREs Comp. Stat. 2, 433–459 (2010)CrossRef
54.
Jolliffe, I.: Principal component analysis. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. Wiley, New York (2005)
55.
Evans, R.: “Behavioural” cost functions for hospitals. Can. J. Econ. 4, 198–215 (1971)CrossRef
56.
Kendall, M.G.: Rank Correlation Methods. Hafner Publishing Co, New York (1955)
57.
Stock, J.H., Watson, M.W.: Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression. NBER Technical Working Paper 323 (2006)
58.
Kezdi, G.: Robust standard errors estimation in fixed-effects panel models. Hung. Stat. Rev. Spec. 9, 96–116 (2004)
59.
Rogers, W.H.: Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Tech. Bull. 13, 19–23 (1994)
60.
Clark, T.S., Linzer, D.A.: Should I use fixed or random effects? Polit. Sci. Res. Methods 3(02), 399–408 (2015)CrossRef
61.
Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K.: Microeconometrics Using Stata, Revised edn. Stata Press, College Station (2010)
62.
Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K.: Microeconometrics. Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)CrossRef
63.
Shea, J.: Instrument relevance in multivariate linear models: a simple measure. Rev. Econ. Stat. 79(2), 348–352 (1997)CrossRef
64.
Hayashi, F.: Econometrics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2000)
65.
Bowblis, J.R., McHone, H.: An instrumental variables approach to post-acute care nursing home quality: Is there a dime’s worth of evidence that continuing care retirement communities provide higher quality? J. Health Econ. 32(5), 980–996 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
66.
Hirth, R.A., Grabowski, D., Feng, Z., Rahman, M., Mor, V.: Effect of nursing home ownership on hospitalization of long-stay residents: an instrumental variables approach. Int. J. Health Care Financ. Econ. 14(1), 1–18 (2014)CrossRef
67.
Angrist, J.D., Krueger, A.B.: Instrumental variables and the search for identification: from supply and demand to natural experiments. J. Econ. Perspect. 15(4), 69–85 (2001)CrossRef
68.
Drukker, D.M.: Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. Stata J. 3, 168–177 (2003)
69.
Wooldridge, J.M.: Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)
70.
Hahn, J., Ham, J.C., Roger Moon, H.: The Hausman test and weak instruments. J. Econom. 160(2), 289–299 (2011)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Is higher nursing home quality more costly?
Authors
L. Di Giorgio
M. Filippini
G. Masiero
Publication date
01-11-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-015-0743-4

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

The European Journal of Health Economics 8/2016 Go to the issue

Original Paper

The diffusion of generics after patent expiry in Germany

Original Paper

Direct medical costs attributable to type 2 diabetes mellitus: a population-based study in Catalonia, Spain

Editorial

Reimbursable drug classes and ceilings in Italy: why not only one?

Original Paper

Choice of statistical model for cost-effectiveness analysis and covariate adjustment: empirical application of prominent models and assessment of their results

Original Paper

Direct cost of pars plana vitrectomy for the treatment of macular hole, epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction: a bottom-up approach

Original Paper

Modeling the costs and long-term health benefits of screening the general population for risks of cardiovascular disease: a review of methods used in the literature