1 / 22

DEA expression for technical efficiency (TE)

DEA expression for technical efficiency (TE). Max. Subject to. for j=1, … , n, u r , v i ≥ 0 for all i and r. DEA framework with one input and one output. E. Number of treated patients. D. C. A, B, C, D, and E are efficient decision making units on the production frontier

vroberson
Télécharger la présentation

DEA expression for technical efficiency (TE)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DEA expression for technical efficiency (TE) Max Subject to for j=1,…, n, ur, vi≥ 0 for all i and r

  2. DEA framework with one input andone output E Number of treated patients D C • A, B, C, D, and E are efficient decision making units on the production frontier • F is inefficient and below the frontier • Efficiency score for input-oriented model equals to d1/d2 • Efficiency score for output-oriented model equals to d3/d4 B d1 F A d2 d4 d3 Total spending on ART

  3. Means of inputs by year Mean HIV/AIDS spending by year Obs denotes number of observations

  4. Means of outputs by year Mean coverage of VCT, PMTCT and ARV treatment 4

  5. DEA models by year • Average efficiency: 49.75%

  6. Performance for 45 countries in 2006 Note: One output unit is one patient on ARV or equivalent for one year

  7. Unit cost of national programs by output

  8. Cautions with interpretation • Unconditional efficiency scores may not perfectly match experts’ perception • DEA does not account for measurement errors • For countries that achieved 100% efficiency, the result does not mean that their efficiency cannot be improved in the future

  9. Pooled DEA model by year

  10. Component II: Determinants of efficiency of national HIV/AIDS programs • Objective: • To indentify social and economic determinants of efficient HIV/AIDS programs • Methods: Random-effects Tobit model • Model: • Dependent variable: log of efficiency • Independent variables • Governance • Political support • Financing mechanism • Economic and demographic characteristics • t denotes time and i denotes country

  11. Regression on log efficiency(Random-effects Tobit model)

  12. Conclusions 1 • Substantial scope for improving HIV/AIDS programs • Output-oriented DEA: If countries performed optimally, given the resources available, outputs would double • Input-oriented DEA: If countries performed optimally, they would require half of the previous resources to achieve the previous level of services

  13. Conclusions 2 • Dollars matter, so does the efficiency of using dollars

  14. Conclusions 3 • Addressing countries’ harsh environment is helpful in controlling HIV/AIDS • if countries achieved a notable* increase in “voice and accountability,” the efficiency of their HIV/AIDS programs would increase by 40.8%. • For countries in the lowest quartile of per capita gross national income (GNI), a notable* increase in GNI would increase the efficiency of their AIDS programs by 45.0%. *A “notable” increase is defined as change from the lowest 25th percentile to the average value of a variable

  15. Conclusions 4 • Low-income countries with high HIV/AIDS prevalence remain the targets for controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS • Low income countries share most of HIV/AIDS burden • Low level of governance in those countries implies significant room for improvement of efficiency

  16. Relationship between gross national income and government effectiveness

  17. Conclusion 5 • Controlling HIV/AIDS requires health sector actions beyond HIV/AIDS • Increase government commitment to health • Strengthen health care system

  18. Conclusion 6 • Controlling HIV/AIDS requires multisectoral cooperation beyond the health sector • Strengthen governance • Alleviate poverty 19

  19. Limitations • DEA highly sensitive to data accuracy • Input and outputs assumed representative • Quality of services not measured • Lag effect of inputs not considered

  20. Acknowledgements • Joan Kaufman, ScD, Brandeis University • John Stover, Futures Institute 21

  21. Thank you! Contact: Shepard@brandeis.edu Wuzengcn@brandeis.edu

More Related