Hospital Capital Investment During the Great Recession

Hospitals during economic crisis: a systematic review based on resilience system capacities framework

Background

Hospitals are the biggest users of the health system budgets. Policymakers are interested in improving hospital efficiency while maintaining their performance during the economic crisis. This study aims at analysing the hospitals’ policy solutions during the economic crisis using the resilience system capacities framework.

Method

This study is a systematic review. The search strategy was implemented on the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Scopus databases, and Econbiz search portal. Data were extracted and analysed through the comparative table of resilience system capacities framework and the World Health Organization (WHO) health system’s six building blocks (i.e., leadership and governance, service delivery, health workforce, health systems financing, health information systems, and medicines and equipment).

Findings

After the screening, 78 studies across 36 countries were reviewed. The economic crisis and adopted policies had a destructive effect on hospital contribution in achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). The short-term absorptive capacity policies were the most frequent policies against the economic crisis. Moreover, the least frequent and most effective policies were adaptive policies. Transformative policies mainly focused on moving from hospital-based to integrated and community-based services. The strength of primary care and community-based services, types and combination of hospital financing systems, hospital performance before the crisis, hospital managers’ competencies, and regional, specialties, and ownership differences between hospitals can affect the nature and success of adopted policies.

Conclusion

The focus of countries on short-term policies and undermining necessary contextual factors, prioritizing efficiency over quality, and ignoring the interrelation of policies compromised hospital contribution in UHC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08316-4.

Factors Associated With Hospital Decisions to Purchase Robotic Surgical Systems

Background. Robotic surgical systems are expensive to own and operate, and the purchase of such technology is an important decision for hospital administrators. Most prior literature focuses on the comparison of clinical outcomes between robotic surgery and other laparoscopic or open surgery. There is a knowledge gap about what drives hospitals’ decisions to purchase robotic systems. Objective. To identify factors associated with a hospital’s acquisition of advanced surgical systems. Method. We used 2002 to 2011 data from the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development to examine robotic surgical system purchase decisions of 476 hospitals. We used a probit estimation allowing heteroscedasticity in the error term including a set of two equations: one binary response equation and one heteroscedasticity equation. Results. During the study timeframe, there were 78 robotic surgical systems purchased by hospitals in the sample. Controlling for hospital characteristics such as number of available beds, teaching status, nonprofit status, and patient mix, the probit estimation showed that market-level directly relevant surgery volume in the previous year (excluding the hospital’s own volume) had the largest impact. More specifically, hospitals in high volume (>50,000 surgeries v. 0) markets were 12 percentage points more likely to purchase robotic systems. We also found that hospitals in less competitive markets (i.e., Herfindahl index above 2500) were 2 percentage points more likely to purchase robotic systems. Limitations. This study has limitations common to observational database studies. Certain characteristics such as cultural factors cannot be accurately quantified. Conclusions. Our findings imply that potential market demand is a strong driver for hospital purchase of robotic surgical systems. Market competition does not significantly increase the adoption of new expensive surgical technologies.