INVESTIGATION OF REIMBURSEMENT METHODS IN HEALTHCARE SERVICES THROUGH AHP

Öz

The aim of the study is to determine the most appropriate reimbursement method by examining the reimbursement methods used in health services. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, one of the multi-criteria decision making techniques, was used in order to achieve the determined goal. Expert opinions were obtained from academicians and healthcare managers during the evaluation of the methods. The data obtained were analyzed by using the "super decision" package program. As a result of the analysis, Global Budget has been selected as the most appropriate reimbursement method. The factor weight of this method was determined as 24.26%. The "Cost Control" criterion used in determining the reimbursement method was found to be the most important evaluation criterion with a 34.25% factor weight. The reason why the results of the study came out in this way is thought to be the global budget method, which is the most widely used reimbursement method in Turkey. In addition, it is thought that the method is good in terms of cost control, medium in quality and easy in terms of management is effective in this result.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Healthcare services
• Reimbursement Method
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making
• AHP

Kaynakça

1. Akbulut, Y. (2012). Sağlık sigortacılığında ödeme yöntemleri. İçinde Hasan Hüseyin Yıldırım (Ed.), Sağlık sigortacılığı (1. bs., ss.100-122). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi AÖF Yayımları.
2. Akyürek, Ç. E. (2012). Sağlıkta Bir Geri Ödeme Yöntemi Olarak Global Bütçe ve Türkiye. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, 2(2).
3. Arık, Ö., & İleri, Y. Y. (2016). Sağlık Hizmetlerinin Finansmanında Türkiye’de Yeni Yaklaşım; Teşhis İlişkili Gruplar (TİG). SDÜ Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(2), 45–50. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/222225
4. Aydemir, İ., & Ağırbaş, İ. (2017). Sağlık Kurumlarına Yapılan Geri Ödeme Yöntemleri: Teşhis İlişkili Gruplar. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, 20(1), 1–21.
5. Erdoğan, P. (2021). Sağlık Kurumlarına Yapılan Geri Ödeme Yöntemleri: SUT-TİG Karşılaştırması. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, 24(1), 15–28. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1659704
6. Görener, A. (2016). A SWOT-AHP Approach for Assessment of Medical Tourism Sector in Turkey. Alphanumeric Journal, 4(2), 159–159. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.277740
7. Jegers, M., Kesteloot, K., De Graeve, D., & Gilles, W. (2002). A typology for provider payment systems in health care. Health Policy, 60(3), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00216-0
8. Niemira, M. P., & Saaty, T. L. (2004). An Analytic Network Process model for financial-crisis forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 20(4), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2003.09.013

9. Normand, C., & Weber, A. (2009). Social health insurance: A guidebook for planning. In World Health. http://libdoc.who.int/publications/50786.pdf
10. Şengül, H., & Bulut, A. (2019). Sağlık Hi̇zmetleri̇nde Ödeme Mekani̇zmaları ve Teşhi̇s i̇le İli̇şki̇li̇ Gruplar. ESTÜDAM Halk Sağlığı Dergisi, 4(2), 196–209.
11. Top, M., & Tarcan, M. (2007). Hastane Sektöründe Kaynak Akışı: Hastane Ödeme Yöntemleri (Mekanizmaları). Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 169–189.