Community Health Center Efficiency. The Impact of Organization Design and Local Context: The Case of Indonesia

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Competency Development and Evaluation for Policy Analyst, Center of Policy Analyst Reinforcement, The National Institute of Public Administration, Jakarta, Indonesia

2 Department of Sociology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

3 Department of Global Economics & Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background 
The decentralization of the Indonesian healthcare system, launched in the year 2000, allowed the authorities of local community health centers (CHCs) to tailor their services to the needs of their clients. Many observers see this as an opportunity to increase CHC efficiency. Building on the Context Design Performance Framework, this paper assesses the extent to which efficiency variations between CHCs can be explained by the degree of fit between their organizational design characteristics and aspects of the communities in which they are embedded. 
 
Methods 
Data envelopment analysis (DEA) was applied to construct a measure of CHC efficiency for a sample of 598 CHCs in 2011, drawn from a publicly available Ministry of Health (MoH) dataset. Tobit regression analysis was applied to assess the impact of organization design and community characteristics and their interplay on efficiency.
 
Results
Large variations in CHC efficiency were discovered, suggesting that not all CHCs are equally capable of finding the optimal design to operate most efficiently. A significant inverted U-shape relationship was found for the organization design-efficiency link: efficiency is highest for CHCs with 1-2 horizontal units and decreases for CHCs exceeding or not reaching this number. No significant association was found between community characteristics (proportion of poor people, remote location of CHC) and CHC efficiency.
 
Conclusion 
Organizational design matters for CHC efficiency, but no evidence was found for the hypothesis that a better fit between community characteristics and CHC design increases efficiency. A potential reason for this might be that CHC management’s main design challenge is how to cope with the scarce availability of well-trained health personnel.

Keywords

References

  1. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457-502. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x
  2. Kringos DS, Boerma WG, Hutchinson A, van der Zee J, Groenewegen PP. The breadth of primary care: a systematic literature review of its core dimensions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:65. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-65
  3. Marathe S, Wan TT, Zhang J, Sherin K. Factors influencing community health centers' efficiency: a latent growth curve modeling approach. J Med Syst. 2007;31(5):365-374. doi:10.1007/s10916-007-9078-8
  4. Pelone F, Kringos DS, Romaniello A, Archibugi M, Salsiri C, Ricciardi W. Primary care efficiency measurement using data envelopment analysis: a systematic review. J Med Syst. 2015;39(1):156. doi:10.1007/s10916-014-0156-4
  5. Heywood P, Choi Y. Health system performance at the district level in Indonesia after decentralization. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2010;10:3. doi:10.1186/1472-698x-10-3
  6. Miharti S, Holzhacker RL, Wittek R. Decentralization and primary health care innovations in Indonesia. In: Holzhacker R, Wittek R, Woltjer J, eds. Decentralization and Governance in Indonesia. Cham: Springer; 2016:53-78. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22434-3_3
  7. Sparrow R, Budiyati S, Yumna A, Warda N, Suryahadi A, Bedi AS. Sub-national health care financing reforms in Indonesia. Health Policy Plan. 2017;32(1):91-101. doi:10.1093/heapol/czw101
  8. Bossert T. Analyzing the decentralization of health systems in developing countries: decision space, innovation and performance. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(10):1513-1527. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00234-2
  9. Ortiz J, Wan TT, Meemon N, Paek SC, Agiro A. Contextual correlates of rural health clinics' efficiency: analysis of nurse practitioners' contributions. Nurs Econ. 2010;28(4):237-244.
  10. Berman P. Cost efficiency in primary health care: studies of health facilities in Indonesia. Health Policy Plan. 1989;4(4):316-322. doi:10.1093/heapol/4.4.316
  11. Budi DS. Efisiensi Relatif Puskesmas-Puskesmas di Kabupaten Pati Tahun 2009 [thesis]. Jakarta: University of Indonesia; 2010.
  12. Supiati EN. Analisis Tingkat Efisiensi Puskesmas di Kota Semarang Tahun 2012 [dissertation]. Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia: Diponegoro University; 2014.
  13. Setyaningrum DU, Woyanti N. Analisis Efisiensi Puskesmas Metode Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) (Studi Empiris: 15 Puskesmas Kota Semarang Tahun 2013) [dissertation]. Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia: Diponegoro University; 2014. http://eprints.undip.ac.id/45212/1/02_SETYANINGRUM.pdf.
  14. Badan Pusat Statistik - Statistik Indonesia. Statistic Indonesia 2016. https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2016/06/29/7aa1e8f93b4148234a9b4bc3/statistik-indonesia-2016.html.
  15. Donaldson L. The contingency theory of organizational design: challenges and opportunities. In: Burton RM, Håkonsson DD, Eriksen B, Snow CC, eds. Organization Design. Boston, MA: Springer; 2006:19-40. doi:10.1007/0-387-34173-0_2
  16. Wagstaff A. Poverty and health sector inequalities. Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(2):97-105. doi:10.1590/s0042-96862002000200004
  17. Utomo B, Sucahya PK, Utami FR. Priorities and realities: addressing the rich-poor gaps in health status and service access in Indonesia. Int J Equity Health. 2011;10:47. doi:10.1186/1475-9276-10-47
  18. Glisson CA, Martin PY. Productivity and efficiency in human service organizations as related to structure, size, and age. Acad Manage J. 1980;23(1):21-37. doi:10.2307/255494
  19. Carillo PM, Kopelman RE. Organization structure and productivity: effects of subunit size, vertical complexity, and administrative intensity on operating efficiency. Group Organ Stud. 1991;16(1):44-59. doi:10.1177/105960119101600104
  20. Dalton DR, Todor WD, Spendolini MJ, Fielding GJ, Porter LW. Organization structure and performance: a critical review. Acad Manage Rev. 1980;5(1):49-64. doi:10.5465/amr.1980.4288881
  21. Hall RH, Tolbert PS. Organization: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. 8th ed. NJ: Prentice Hall; 2005.
  22. Wittek R, van Witteloostuijn A. Rational choice and organizational change. In: Wittek R, Snijder TA, Nee V, eds. The Handbook of Rational Choice Social Research. 1st ed. Standford University Press; 2013:556-588.
  23. Armandi BR, Mills EW Jr. Organizational size, structure, and efficiency: a test of a Blau-Hage model. Am J Econ Sociol. 1982;41(1):43-60. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1982.tb01667.x
  24. Glenn SS, Malott ME. Complexity and selection: implications for organizational change. Behav Soc Issues. 2004;13(2):89-106. doi:10.5210/bsi.v13i2.378
  25. Andrews R, Beynon MJ, McDermott AM. Organizational capability in the public sector: a configurational approach. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2016;26(2):239-258. doi:10.1093/jopart/muv005
  26. Nieto Morales F, Wittek R, Heyse L. After the reform: change in Dutch public and private organizations. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2013;23(3):735-754. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus006
  27. Sillince JAA. A Contingency theory of rhetorical congruence. Acad Manage Rev. 2005;30(3):608-621. doi:10.5465/amr.2005.17293722
  28. Donaldson L, Joffe G. Fit-the key to organizational design. J Organ Des. 2014;3(3):38-45. doi:10.7146/jod.18424
  29. Farrell MJ. The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 1957;120(3):253-290. doi:10.2307/2343100
  30. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res. 1978;2(6):429-444. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
  31. Coelli TJ, Prasada Rao DS, O’Donnell CJ, Battese GE. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Boston, MA: Springer; 2005. doi:10.1007/b136381
  32. Akazili J, Adjuik M, Jehu-Appiah C, Zere E. Using data envelopment analysis to measure the extent of technical efficiency of public health centres in Ghana. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2008;8:11. doi:10.1186/1472-698x-8-11
  33. Dube L, Taha M, Asefa H. Determinants of infant mortality in community of Gilgel Gibe Field Research Center, Southwest Ethiopia: a matched case control study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:401. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-401
  34. Mustafa HE. Socioeconomic Determinants of Infant Mortality in Kenya. Journal of Humanities Social Sciences. 2008;2(2):1-16.
  35. Titaley CR, Dibley MJ, Agho K, Roberts CL, Hall J. Determinants of neonatal mortality in Indonesia. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:232. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-232
  36. Ahmed S, Hasan MZ, Laokri S, et al. Technical efficiency of public district hospitals in Bangladesh: a data envelopment analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2019;17:15. doi:10.1186/s12962-019-0183-6
  37. Terra de Souza AC, Cufino E, Peterson KE, Gardner J, Vasconcelos do Amaral MI, Ascherio A. Variations in infant mortality rates among municipalities in the state of Ceará, Northeast Brazil: an ecological analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28(2):267-275. doi:10.1093/ije/28.2.267
  38. Cordero Ferrera JM, Crespo Cebada E, Murillo Zamorano LR. The effect of quality and socio-demographic variables on efficiency measures in primary health care. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(3):289-302. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0476-1
  39. Jehu-Appiah C, Sekidde S, Adjuik M, et al. Ownership and technical efficiency of hospitals: evidence from Ghana using data envelopment analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12(1):9. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-12-9
  40. Varabyova Y, Müller JM. The efficiency of health care production in OECD countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-country comparisons. Health Policy. 2016;120(3):252-263. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.12.005
  41. Tobin J. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica. 1958;26(1):24-36. doi:10.2307/1907382
  42. Simar L, Wilson PW. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. J Econom. 2007;136(1):31-64. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2005.07.009
  43. Lind JT, Mehlum H. With or without U? the appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxf Bull Econ Stat. 2010;72(1):109-118. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x
  44. Haans RFJ, Pieters C, He ZL. Thinking about U: theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strateg Manag J. 2016;37(7):1177-1195. doi:10.1002/smj.2399
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 7
July 2022
Pages 1197-1207

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 19 May 2020
  • Revise Date: 04 March 2021
  • Accept Date: 06 March 2021
  • First Publish Date: 13 April 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics