.

-
-

) (%83.5
) (%83.5

) (%16.5

.

(8) ).(%40

) (%89.9

) (%10.1

)( ) (%10.1

) (10 ).(%50

-1-

Assessment of the Performance Efficiency of Health Services in Saudi

Arabia

Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the performance of health services in Saudi
Arabia by measuring the relative efficiency of primary health care centers and
government hospitals using the method of analysis of envelope data. Were
used the number of doctors, and the number of nurses, and the number of
categories of medical assistance and the number of centers as inputs to the
model and the number of Patient Visits to clinics, and the number of
laboratory tests, and the number of patients using imaging radiation of the
output of the model.
The study found that the average relative efficiency of primary health care
centers is (83.5%), which means that primary health care centers in the
Kingdom should be able to provide the same level of output using (83.5%) of
the input current or increase the output by (16.5%) using the same levels of
input current if it is working relatively efficiently complete. According to the
indicator of productivity, the number of public areas of the overall efficiency
of the full terms of the relative efficiency of primary health care centers, is an
(8) areas of increased (40%).
The average relative efficiency of all government hospitals (89.9%),
indicating that these hospitals can reduce the input current by (10.1%) and
provide the same level of services (outputs) or greater service to the
beneficiaries, by (10.1%) using the same input levels if the current operate
with relative efficiency and the results showed that the number of areas of the
overall efficiency of the full terms of the relative efficiency of their hospital
(10) areas (50%).
Based on the results of the study researcher recommends re-distribution of
health resources, and most importantly manpower in primary health care
centers and government hospitals with a view to optimal exploitation of these
resources and to conduct further studies on the reasons for the lack of health
facilities and relative efficiency to measure the impact of external factors on
rates of efficiency.

-2-

) 2001 (.

) 1995 .(5:

( .

)
(.

-3-

-1 :
:

.
) 2007 .(11:

-4-

)(

)( .

) (

.

.
0T

.
-5-

0T

 :
:

) (Data Envelopment Analysis

14282007/.

-2 :
.

-6-

. ) (1

1390 1428 . ) (74

1390 ) (387 1428 ) (%423

) (%4.4 ) (53519 1428 ) (%492

) (1925

) (%4.8 ) (519

1428 ) (%271 ) (%3.5 )(47919

1390 ) (%3989

1428 )(1172

1428

) (%10.3 )(93735
) (3261 1390 ) (%2774 ) (%9.2

) (1741 1390 ) (51288 1428

) (%2846 ).(%9.3

-7-

 )(1

1390

74

9039

519

1172

3261

1741

1400

109

17547

1668

6536

12004

6791

1410

257

39451

1668

2385

48026

25716

1420

318

45919

1766

31222

66948

40422

1428

387

53519

1925

47919

93735

51288

%423

%492

%271

%3989

%2774

%2846

%4.4

%4.8

%3.5

%10.3

%9.2

%9.3

: : 1428
0T

0T

) (123 ) (%31.8

) (11271 ) (%21.1 ) (114468 )(%30.2

) (%22.5

)(21085

) (7168 ) (%14.0

)(2
1428
/

264

123

387

%68.2

42248

11271

53519

%78.9

33451

14468

47919

%69.8

72650

21085

93735

%77.5

44120

7168

51288

%86.0

: 1428

-8-

-
) 1996(.

.(Sheldon, 1998:46)

) .(Sheldon, 1998:46

) (

) ) ((1
P

F0

) 1424 .(50 :

-9-

 .
) ( .

1996(:

) 2007 1999

) (
)( )( .

) (

)(

Variables
.2002

Categorical
) (Forsund,

....

)(
)(

)( "

" ) Relative

.(Technical Efficiency

).(Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes,1978

)1997 (.
- 10 -

) Data Envelopment

(Analysis

) 1996 Cooer, Seiford and Tone, 2003 .(Joe Zhu, 2003

)(Farell,1957

"
) .(Thanassoulis, 1993
"

" ).(Lewin, 1982

) (Decision Making Units ) .(DMU

) (

- )( .

) (

. ) ( ) ( J

) (CCR
):(Charnes, Cooper & Rhodes

- 11 -

u r y rj
o

Maxu , v h o = r =1
m

v i x ijo

i =1

j =1,2,....n

)(1

t
u r y rj
r =1

m
v i x ij
i =1

and

to

Subject

, vi

ur

) (i r (r = 1, 2, 3, , t) : ) (i = 1, 2, 3, , m

:
: ) (r ). (j

ur

). (r

: X i j ) (i ). (j

Vi

). (i

yr j

: .

) (Jo

) (1
).(Charnes et. al, 1994

:
:

- 1 ):(CCR

) (1 )

(
)

( .

) Charnes and Cooper , 1962 Cooper, Seiford, and Tone,2003 :(Joe Zhu, 2003
- 12 -

 ) (CCR

)( ).(Frontier
(Constant Return to Scale) CRS

.
.
- 2 ):(BCC

) (Banker-Charnes -Cooper )(CCR

) (Scale of Operations

. ) (

Joe Zhu, 2003) VRS (Cooper,

.Seiford, and Tone, 2000

:

Min Z o
Subject to:

; i =1,2,..., m

r = 1,2,..., t

i x ijo

j =1

x ijo zo
n

j = 1,2,..., n

j y rj
o

y rj

j =1

j0
n
j =1
j =1

)(2

- 13 -

 -3 ):(Multiplicative model

)(Charnes, A., Cooper, (Cobb-Douglas

W., Seifor d, L. and Stutz, J.(1982, 1983).
- 4 :Additive model

(Charnes, A. Cooper,

).W. Golany, B., Seiford, L. and Stut, J. (1985

:

1996

1997 1997

2000 2002 2004 2007.

Sherman 1984

).(Sherman, 1984
Morey et al 1990

.
60 ) .(Morey, et al. 1990 1993
- 14 -

 ) .(Finkler and Wirtschofter, 1993

) .(Szczequra et al 1993

).(Lynch and Ozcan, 1994

Sola and Prior, 2001 ):

( )( Bhat et al 2001

) ( Garcia et al, 1999 ) ( Al- Shammari, 1999 ) (Bahormoz, 1998

) .(Parkin and Hollingsworth, 1997

... .

)

.
-3 :
.

1-3 :

) (Lewin et al 1982

- 15 -

 ) .(3

) (

) 20(

) (Charnes, Cooper; and Siford, 1994

).(Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons,2004

2-3:

1428

)2007( . ) (1) (2
) 1428(

) :(3

: Inputs

:Outputs

) (

- 16 -

 3-3 :
1-3-3 :

)CCR

(BCC .

) (4 ) .(1 ] (1)[ Z CCR

) (2
F1

) (8

) (20 ) (%40 :
.

) (12
) (%60 ) ( :

.
) :(1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

1 )
( )( ) (
. )(CCR
.
2 )(%100
) (%100

.
- 17 -

) (3 (
F2

] [ ZCCR )

] [ ZBCC

) (4
F3

(4

) (

)(

] ( 5 ) [ SE
F4

)( .

) (3 ) (
) / (
.... .
(4 ) (BCC .
(5 ) ( ZCCR ).( ZBCC
- 18 -

 ) :(4
1428

] [ Z CCR
69.5

12

100.0

100.0

68.7

14

70.2

97.9

69.2

13

78.0

88.7

100.0

100.0

100.0

66.3

18

75.1

88.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

95.0

10

100.0

95.0

64.6

19

95.3

67.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

98.4

98.5

99.8

66.7

17

72.9

91.6

68.3

15

70.0

97.6

100.0

100.0

100.0

77.7

11

83.5

93.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

67.3

16

81.0

83.1

58.5

20

100.0

58.5

100.0

100.0

100.0

91.2

91.6

)**(

83.5

] [ Z BCC
100.0

69.5

100.0

] [ SE

)**(

) (4

) .(%83.5

)
(

) (%83.5 )

( . )
- 19 -

 (%17.5 .

) %19.8 (.

) (%91.2

) .(%91.6

:
.

:
.

- 20 -

) (:

) (

) (output maximization ) .( Input minimization

) (5 )(

" " Actual

" )( "target

) (
) (
.

( )

Reference plants
(

( Benchmarking ) (
. ) (5

- 21 -

 -1 :
) :(5
- :

- :

361

251

1072

745

327-

2225

1547

678-

%30.5-

1093

651

442-

%30.5-

936

8550505

8550505

1142247

1423182

280935

%24.6

1229586
7
2046575

361

110-

%30.5-

%30.5

1072

2225

0
157-

3745362

%43.8

904329

%79.2

52477

52477

75463

22986

%43.8

:Peer Group .

) (5

:
- :

) :

) (%43.8

) (%79.2

) .(%43.8
) (157 ).(%14.3

- :

- 22 -

 ( ) (327 ) (%30.5-
) (678 ) (%30.5-

) (442 ) (%30.54-
) (251 .

) (%24.6
.

) (.

2-3-3 :

- 23 -

) (%89.9
)

( ) (%89.9

.
(
) (%10.1

).(%11.3

) (3 ) (1
]

CCR

[ Z

) (10 ) (20 ) (%50 :

.

) (10 ) (%50 )

( :

) :(2

- 24 -

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

)( . ) (3

) (%89.9

) (%92

) .(%97.4

: .

- 25 -

 ) :(6
1428

] [ Z CCR

] [ Z BCC

] [ SE

74.3

18

100

74.3

79.8

16

80.7

98.9

61.6

20

66.4

92.8

80

15

80.3

99.7

100

100

100

100

100

100

79.5

17

81.8

97.2

83.5

13

85.5

97.6

98.9

11

99.6

99.2

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

84.3

12

92.2

91.5

100

100

100

100

100

100

73.2

19

74.1

98.7

100

100

100

82

14

82.7

99.1

100

100

100

100

100

100

92.2

97.4

)**(

89.9

- 26 -

)**(

) (
.

. ) (7

)(

) (7

: :

) :

) (%34.5 ) (%48

) (%50.7

) .(%34.5
.

- : )

) (1650 ) (%27.6- ) (1120

) (%25.7-

) (4020 )-

(%37.7 ) (1153

)-

(%25.7 ) (%10) (12

.

- 27 -

 ) :(7
- :

- :

5974

4324

1650-

%27.6-

5817

157-

%2.6-

4362

3242

1120-

%25.7-

4362

%0.0

10660

6640

4020-

%37.7-

8933

1727-

%16.2-

4491

3338

1153-

%25.7-

4491

%0.0

1911965

1911965

%0.0

2572191

660226

%34.5

241815

266021

24206

%10.0

357882

116067

%48.0

12558726

14068598

1509872

%12.0

18926664

6367938

%50.7

827590

827590

%0.0

1113367

285777

3-3-3
:
) (8

- 28 -

%34.5

 )(8
1428

CCR

BCC

SE

11

10

11

10

) (8 ) (8

) (%40) (11 )(%55

) (8

) .(%40

) (10 ) (%50) (11

) (%55 ) (10 ) .(%50

) (5

) (%25 :

) (7 ) (%35 :

) (

. ) (9

) .(0.05

- 29 -

 )(9

MannWhitney
U

Wilcoxon
W

83.5

16.6

89.9

12.3

99.5

61.6

100

91.2

12.0

100.0

70.0

100

92.2

10.8

100.0

66.4

100

91.5

12.5

97.8

58.5

100

97.5

5.9

99.9

74.3

100

192.5

150.5

402.5

360.5

0.22-

1.40-

86.4

58.5

100

149.0

359.0

1.45-

0.15

0.82

0.16

:
1

) DMU (

2 )(
) (

) /( ... .

- 30 -

:
:

) /( ) /(

) (

) /(

....

... .

- 31 -


- :
2007) ( .

- 1
. .

) (2002 .
- 2

- 3 " -
" 36 1996) 2( .346 - 317

- 4 ) 1419 1999 / ( " :

"

. 205 203 33 32

- 5 )2001( .
.

- 6 1997) .("
: " .

. 239-207

- 7 2004) (

. 16 ) (2 .342-313 :

- 8 ) 2000(
- :
) -(1 ).(4

- 9 )2007(

. )-(8

- 10
14282007/.

- 11 )1995( :

- 32 -

- 12 )1424(
.

- 13 )1999(
:
.

- 14 .
0T

0T

- 15 .

- 33 -

: -
1.
2.

3.

4.
5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.
12.
13.

Sheldon, T. (1998). "Promoting Health Care Quality: What role

performance indicators?", Quality in Health Care, 7(Suppl): 45-50.
Cooper, Seiford, Tone (2003).Data Envelopment Analysis: A
comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEASolver Software, Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Norwell,
Massachusetts 02061 USA.
JOE Zhu,(2003). Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and
Benchmarking : data envelopment analysis with spreadsheets and DEA
Excel solver, Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Norwell, Massachusetts
02061 USA.
Farrell, M.J.(1957). The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal
of the Royal Statistical Society, A, 120, No. 3, 253-290.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W., Lewin, A. and seiford, L. (1994), Data
Envelopment Analysis- theory, Methodology and Applications. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Charnes, A., cooper, W.W., and Rhodes, E. (1981), Evaluating Program
and Managerial Efficiency: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis
to Program Follow Through. Management Science, No. 27, 668-697.
Bowlin, W. F. (1998), Measuring Performance: An Introduction to Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Journal of Cost Analysis (Fall .1998) pp.
3-27.
Stupnytskyy, O . (2002), Secondary Schools efficiency in the Czech
Republic. Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education, Prague,
Czech Republic.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W., Seiford, L. and Stutz, J. (1982), A
Multiplicative Model for Efficiency Analysis. Socio- Economic Planning
Sciences, 16, No. 5, 223-224.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W., Seiford, L. and Stutz, J.(1983), Invariant
Multiplicative Efficiency and Piecewise Cobb- Douglas Envelopment,
Operations Research Letters,2, No.3, 101-103.
Forsund, F. R. (2002), Categorical Variables in DEA. International Journal
of Business and Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 33-43.
Kao, C. (1994), Efficiency improvement in Data Envelopment Analysis,
European Journal of the Operational Research vol. 73, pp:487-494.
Jenkins, L. and Anderson, M. (2003), "A Multivariate Statistical Approach
to Reducing the Number of Variables in Data envelopment Analysis.
European Journal of Operational Research, 147, No 2 ,pp: 51-62.

- 34 -

14. Sherman, H. (1984), Hospital Efficiency Measurement and Evaluation,

15.
16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.
24.

25.

26.

Empirical Test of a New Technique. " Medical Care, Vol. 22(10), pp: 922923.
Morey, D. Fine, D. and Loree. S. (1990), Comparing the Allocative
Efficiencies of Hospitals."OMEGA, Vol. 18(1), pp: 71-83.
Lynch, J. and Ozcan, Y.(1994),Hospital Closure: An Efficiency Analysis,
Hospital & Health Services Administration, Vol. 39(2), pp: 205-220.
Sola, M. and Prior, D. (2001), Measuring Productivity and Quality
changes using Data Envelopment Analysis: An Application to Catalan
hospitals. Financial Accountability & Management. 17, No. 3, pp: 219245.
Bhat, R. Verma, B. B. and Reuben, E. (2001), Hospital Efficiency: An
empirical analysis of district and grant-in-aid hospitals in Gujarat. Indian
Institute of Management Ahmedabad.
Garcia, F.- Marcuello, c., Serrano, D. and Urbina, O. (1999), Evaluation of
Efficiency in Primary Health Care Centers: An Application of Data
Envelopment Analysis. Financial Accountability ant Management. 15.
No. 1 pp:. 67-83.
Al- shammari, M (1999), .A Multi-criteria Data Envelopment analysis
Model for Measuring the Productive Efficiency of Hospitals.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management . 19. No.
9. pp: 879-890.
Bahormoz, A (1998), "Measuring Efficiency in Primary Health Care
Center in Saudi Arabia." Journal of Economics and Administration, King
Abdulaziz University, No.11, pp: 97-121.
Parkin, D. and Hollingsworth, B.(1997), "Measuring Production
Efficiency of Acute Hospitals in Scotland, 1991-94 : Validity issues in
data Envelopment Analysis. "Applied Economics, 29. No. 11,pp: 14251433.
Lewin, A.Y., Morey, R.C. and cook, T.J. (1982), Evaluating the
Administrative Efficiency of Courts, OMEGA, Vol. (10), pp: 401-411.
Al-shammari, M. (1999), Optimization Modeling for estimating and
Enhancing Relative Efficiency with Application to Industrial Companies.
European Journal of Operational Research, 115, No. 3 , pp: 488-469.
Charnes A, Cooper W, Lewi A and Siford L.(1994). Data Envelopment
Analysis, Theory, Methodology And Application, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Ch. 21, pp: 425-435.
Fitzsimmons J., and Fitzsimmons, M. (2004) Service Management:
Operations, Strategy and Information Technology, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill,
London.

- 35 -


)(1

1428

104

376

902

236

2642932

296544

8189

134

365

519

160

3564790

514519

6163

145

374

936

520

3316041

370126

15125

114

424

1069

370

2694883

506748

45623

57

280

535

335

2484301

543579

13253

32

96

233

71

832057

200966

110

250

497

937

328

3636902

646847

13310

36

108

229

64

953954

239017

5546

62

151

423

83

1656858

159931

3938

89

196

492

155

1592146

277118

4178

39

118

200

85

969373

112446

2922

134

241

616

368

4196512

466126

11659

59

175

301

227

1493151

224398

7985

86

226

469

212

1674095

328356

25135

28

110

242

126

766918

121388

2799

17

43

126

32

351484

25644

606

29
1925

61
5481

108
11872

53
5105

1019018
47487557

121390
7292848

2592
255074

- 36 -

75

254

619

317

2011571

322671

10956

74

314

691

270

3080066

672787

22508

361

1072

2225

1093

8550505

1142247

52477

 )(2

1428

2650

1801

4022

2333

698008

99923

7648884

269413

1926

1207

2999

1275

489471

82633

4917722

243336

2158

1703

3220

1844

1093797

113836

11458989

390703

2118

1322

3922

2281

1043048

111654

6885801

388722

2620

1694

3907

2161

930667

115243

7338310

350813

1339

1009

2515

1325

366800

78518

4549593

238602

439

480

788

369

121570

26559

1276439

88778

2000

1569

3220

1771

943345

143157

8254776

424268

465

335

700

333

103067

22739

1409419

84689

951

782

1660

703

522821

57872

2009332

178230

939

664

1656

869

274879

73732

3658113

132328

750

464

912

399

223698

29008

1521561

109580

1796

1221

2796

1773

784199

148306

5158846

299287

910

693

1484

1016

300691

55603

2159088

132128

1119

533

977

681

368347

55327

4143053

135470

742

479

1058

545

198860

27874

1852902

106663

350

214

601

315

111974

49527

1331656

67332

150

163

356

186

60646

16144

712873

39799

26432 51169 22376 31420

- 37 -

11390297

95502452 1640388

2024

1681

3716

1762

842444

90918

6656369

291222

5974

4362

10660

4491

1911965

241815

12558726

827590

4798953