Influence of the revision of surgical fee schedule on surgeons' productivity in Japan: A cohort analysis of 7602 surgical procedures in 2013–2016. (February 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nakata, Yoshinori; Watanabe, Yuichi; Narimatsu, Hiroto; Yoshimura, Tatsuya; Otake, Hiroshi; Sawa, Tomohiro
• Is Part Of: Health services management research. Volume 31:Number 1(2018)
• Page Start: 51
• Page End: 56
• Publication Date: 2018-02
• Subjects: Malmquist index -- productivity -- surgical reimbursement system; Public health administration -- Research -- Periodicals; Public health administration -- Study and teaching (Higher) -- Periodicals; Health services administration -- Research -- Periodicals; Health services administration -- Study and teaching (Higher) -- Periodicals; 362.1072
• DOI: 10.1177/0951484817740289
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0951-4848

Abstract

The goal of this study is to evaluate the pure impact of the revision of surgical fee schedule on surgeons' productivity. We collected data from the surgical procedures performed by the surgeons working in Teikyo University Hospital from 1 April through 30 September in 2013–2016. We employed non-radial and non-oriented Malmquist model. We defined the decision-making unit as a surgeon with the highest academic rank in surgery. Inputs were defined as (1) the number of doctors who assisted surgery and (2) the time of surgical operation. The output was defined as the surgical fee for each surgery. We focused on the revisions in 2014 and 2016. We first calculated each surgeon's natural logarithms of the changes in productivity, technique and efficiency in 2013–2014, in 2014–2015 and in 2015–2016. Then, we subtracted the changes in 2014–2015 from the changes in 2013–2014 and in 2015–2016. We analyzed 62 surgeons who performed 7602 surgical procedures. The productivity changes were not significantly different from 0. Their efficiency change was significantly greater than 0, while their technical change was smaller than 0 in revision 2014. Their efficiency change was significantly smaller than 0, while their technical change was greater than 0 in revision 2016 (p < 0.05). This finding suggests that we could increase overall productivity through revision if we could increase both efficiency and technique.