Skip to main content

Is higher nursing home quality more costly?

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a more detailed description of the Swiss nursing home sector, see [2].

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9.

    The Durbin–Wu–Hausman test performed using the lagged SR as instrumental variable does not reject exogeneity at the \(99\, \%\) level.

  10. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17.

    See, for instance, Hahn et al. [70], for a discussion about weak instruments in the econometric literature.

References

  1. 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. 2.

    Di Giorgio, L., Filippini, M., Masiero, G.: Implications of global budget payment system on nursing home costs. Health Policy 115, 237–248 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Lohr, K.N. (ed.): Medicare: A Strategy for Quality Assurance, vol. 1. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1990)

  5. 5.

    A First Class Service—Quality in the New NHS. Department of Health, London (1997)

  6. 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. 7.

    WHO.: The World Health Report 2000: health systems: improving performance. World Health Organization, Geneva (2000)

  8. 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. 9.

    Donabedian, A.: The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 260(12), 1743–1748 (1988)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Zimmerman, D.: Development and testing of nursing home quality indicators. Health Care Financ. Rev. 16(4), 107–127 (1995)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Zimmerman, D.: Improving nursing home quality of care through outcomes data: the MDS quality indicators. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 18, 250–257 (2003)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 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)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Castle, N.G., Ferguson, J.C.: What is nursing home quality and how is it measured? Gerontologist 50(4), 426–442 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    McKay, N.L.: Quality choice in Medicaid markets: the case of nursing homes. Quarter. Rev. Econ. Bus. 29(2), 27–40 (1989)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Castle, N.G., Engberg, J.: Staff turnover and quality of care in nursing homes. Med. Care 43(6), 616–626 (2005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Nyman, J.A.: Improving the quality of nursing home outcomes. Med. Care 26, 1158–1171 (1988)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mukamel, D.B.: Risk-adjusted outcome measures and quality of care in nursing homes. Med. Care 35(4), 367–385 (1997)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Karon, S.L., Sainfort, F., Zimmerman, D.R.: Stability of nursing home quality indicators over time. Med. Care 37(6), 570–579 (1999)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Carey, K.: A panel data design for estimation of hospital cost functions. Rev. Econ. Stat. 79(3), 443–453 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bowblis, J.R., Lucas, J.A.: The impact of state regulations on nursing home care practices. J. Regul. Econ. 42, 52–72 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Forder, J., Allan, S.: Competition in the English nursing homes market. PSSRU Discussion Paper 2820, University of Kent (2011)

  44. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  46. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Mukamel, D.B., Spector, W.D.: Nursing home costs and risk-adjusted outcome measures of quality. Med. Care 38(1), 78–89 (2000)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Institute of Medicine.: Performance Measurement: Accelerating Improvement. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2006)

  53. 53.

    Abdi, H., Williams, L.J.: Principal component analysis. WIREs Comp. Stat. 2, 433–459 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Jolliffe, I.: Principal component analysis. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. Wiley, New York (2005)

  55. 55.

    Evans, R.: “Behavioural” cost functions for hospitals. Can. J. Econ. 4, 198–215 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Kendall, M.G.: Rank Correlation Methods. Hafner Publishing Co, New York (1955)

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Stock, J.H., Watson, M.W.: Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression. NBER Technical Working Paper 323 (2006)

  58. 58.

    Kezdi, G.: Robust standard errors estimation in fixed-effects panel models. Hung. Stat. Rev. Spec. 9, 96–116 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Rogers, W.H.: Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Tech. Bull. 13, 19–23 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Clark, T.S., Linzer, D.A.: Should I use fixed or random effects? Polit. Sci. Res. Methods 3(02), 399–408 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K.: Microeconometrics Using Stata, Revised edn. Stata Press, College Station (2010)

  62. 62.

    Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K.: Microeconometrics. Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Shea, J.: Instrument relevance in multivariate linear models: a simple measure. Rev. Econ. Stat. 79(2), 348–352 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Hayashi, F.: Econometrics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  65. 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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Drukker, D.M.: Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. Stata J. 3, 168–177 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Wooldridge, J.M.: Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Hahn, J., Ham, J.C., Roger Moon, H.: The Hausman test and weak instruments. J. Econom. 160(2), 289–299 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Masiero.

Additional information

We thank Andrew Street for helpful comments and invaluable advice during our stay with the Policy team at the Center for Health Economics at the University of York. Also, we thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for financial support to the project. Any errors are the authors’ responsibility.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giorgio, L.D., Filippini, M. & Masiero, G. Is higher nursing home quality more costly?. Eur J Health Econ 17, 1011–1026 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-015-0743-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nursing home
  • Costs
  • Nonprofit
  • Single quality indicators
  • Composite quality indicators
  • Cost-quality tradeoff
  • Process quality
  • Outcome quality
  • Structure quality

JEL Classification

  • I10
  • L3