Transaction Cost Theory in the Health Sector: A Systematic Review Study

Öz

The purpose of this research is to determine for what purposes and how the transaction cost theory (TCT) is used in the health sector. In the research conducted using the PICOS research question strategy, PRISMA protocol principles and the flow chart (Follow Diagram), 3 different databases were scanned with the search formula (different keyword combination) determined between April 12 and May 12, 2022, and 15 studies were evaluated as a result of the search. . In line with the investigations; It has been determined that TCT is used in the health sector for various purposes. Accordingly, TCT in the health sector; Clarifying financial events (such as performance), taking strategic steps (market presence activities), understanding contracts, establishing trust between organizations, determining search, monitoring and adaptation costs, and making use of various transactions (such as information specificity, technology uncertainty, informatCion sharing) It has been found that it is used to minimize the transaction costs arising from the process and to understand the treatment-seeking behaviors of health care users. It is recommended to use TCT to provide a richer understanding of the factors that lead to theories such as business outsourcing, corporate theory, and emergency theory. Key Words: Transaction Cost Theory, Health Sector, Health Economics, Health Policy, Systematic Review JEL Classification: M20, M21, I15

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Transaction Cost Theory
• Health Sector
• Health Economics
• Health Policy
• Systematic Review

Sağlık Sektöründe İşlem Maliyeti Teorisi: Bir Sistematik Derleme Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, sağlık sektöründe işlem maliyeti teorisinin (İMT) hangi amaçlar için ne şekilde kullanıldığını belirlemektir. PICOS araştırma sorusu stratejisi, PRISMA protokolü ilkeleri ve akış diyagramı (Follow Diagram) kullanılarak yürütülen araştırmada, 12 Nisan - 12 Mayıs 2022 tarihleri arasında belirlenen arama formülü (farklı anahtar kelimesi kombinasyonu) ile 3 farklı veri tabanı taranmış, yapılan tarama neticesinde 15 çalışma değerlendirmeye alınmıştır. Yapılan incelemeler doğrultusunda; İMT’nin çeşitli amaçlar ile sağlık sektöründe kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Buna göre sağlık sektöründe İMT; mali olayların (performans gibi) açıklığa kavuşturulmasında, stratejik adımlar atarken (pazarda var olma faaliyetleri), sözleşmelerin anlaşılmasında, kuruluşlar arasında güven tesis etmek, arama, izleme ve uyarlama maliyetlerini tespit etmek, çeşitli işlemlerden (bilgi özgüllüğü, teknoloji belirsizliği, bilgi paylaşımı gibi) kaynaklanan işlem maliyetlerini en aza indirgemek ve sağlık hizmeti kullanıcılarının tedavi arama davranışlarının anlaşılmasında kullanıldığı bulunmuştur. İşletmeleri, dış kaynak kullanımı, kurumsal teori, acil durum teorisi gibi teorilere yönlendiren faktörlerin daha zengin bir şekilde anlaşılmasını sağlamak için İMT’nin kullanılması önerilmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: İşlem Maliyeti Teorisi, Sağlık Sektörü, Sağlık Ekonomisi, Sağlık Politikası, Sistematik Derleme JEL Sınıflandırması: M20, M21, I15

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşlem Maliyeti Teorisi
• Sağlık Sektörü
• Sağlık Ekonomisi
• Sağlık Politikası
• Sistematik Derleme

Kaynakça

1. *Abimbola, S., Ogunsina, K., Charles-Okoli, A. N., Negin, J., Martiniuk, A. L. ve Jan, S. (2016). Information, Regulation And Coordination: Realist Analysis of The Efforts of Community Health Committees to Limit İnformal Health Care Providers in Nigeria. Health Economics Review. Vol 6, Iss 1, 51. doi:10.1186/s13561-016-0131-5
2. *Baranoff, E. G., Sager, T. W., Shi, B. ve Baranoff, D. (2021). On the Financial Superiority of Medicaid Specialist Insurers: A Novel Transactions Cost/Supply Chain Approach. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance: Issues and Practice. Vol 1,1-36. doi:10.1057/s41288-021-00204-y
3. *Bates, S. (2022). How an Intermediary Model Manages the Tension Between Low Contractibility and Probity When Outsourcing Human Services. Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol 1, 1-22. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12540
4. Baumeister, R. F. (2013). Writing a Literature Review. The Portable Mentor, Vol 1, 119–132. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_8
5. Bronson, D. E. ve Davis, T. S. (2011). Finding and Evaluating EvidenceSystematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195337365.001.0001
6. *Bugshan, H., Hajli, N., Lin, X., Featherman, M. ve Cohen, I. (2014). Social Media for Developing Health Services. Qualitative Market Research, Vol 7, Iss 3, 283–296. doi:10.1108/QMR-07-2013-0048
7. *Castano, R. ve Mills, A. (2013). The Consequences of Hospital Autonomization in Colombia: A Transaction Cost Economics Analysis. Health Policy and Planning, Vol 28, Iss 2, 157–164. doi:10.1093/heapol/czs032
8. CEBM, (2009). “Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine”, www.cebm.net ,(04.15.2022).

9. *Chang, H. H., Hung, C. J., Huang, C. Y., Wong, K. H. ve Tsai, Y. J. (2017). Social Capital and Transaction Cost on Co-Creating IT Value Towards Inter-Organizational EMR Exchange. International Journal of Medical Informatics, Iss 97, 247–260. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.10.015
10. *Chao, C. M., Yu, C. T., Cheng, B. W. ve Chuang, P. C. (2013). Trust and Commitment in Relationships Among Medical Equipment Suppliers: Transaction Cost and Social Exchange Theories. Social Behavior and Personality, Vol 41, Iss7, 1057–1070. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.7.1057
11. *Cruz, A. M., Haugan, G. L. ve Rincon, A. M. R. (2014). The Effects of Asset Specificity on Maintenance Financial Performance: an Empirical Application of Transaction Cost Theory to the Medical Device Maintenance Field. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol 237, Iss3, 1037–1053. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.02.040
12. Çınar, N. (2021). İyi Bir Sistematik Derleme Nasıl Yazılmalı? Online Türk Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt 6, Sayı 2, 310-314.
13. Egger, M., Dickersin, K. ve Smith, G. D. (2001). Problems and Limitations in Conducting Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews in Health Care 43–68. doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch3
14. Gambrill, E. ve Gibbs, L. (2015). Developing Well-Structured Questions for Evidence-İnformed Practice. K. Corcoran ve A. Roberts (Ed.), Social Workers’ Desk Reference içinde (1198-1204). New York: Oxford University Press.
15. *Hajli, M. N., Shanmugam, M., Hajli, A., Khani, A. H. ve Wang, Y. (2015). Health Care Development: Integrating Transaction Cost Theory with Social Support Theory. Informatics for Health and Social Care, Vol 40, Iss 4, 334–344. doi:10.3109/17538157.2014.924950
16. Isaacs, D. ve Fitzgerald, D. (1999). Seven Alternatives to Evidence Based Medicine. BMJ, Vol 319, Iss7225, 1618–1618. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7225.1618
17. Ju, T., Szu-Yuan, S, Pei-Ju, C. ve Chang-Yao, W. (2010). Knowledge Sharing Behavior in E-Communities: From the Perspective of Transaction Cost Theory. International Journal of Social Sciences, Vol 5, Iss 2, 134–139.
18. Klaes, M. (2000). The History of the Concept of Transaction Costs: Neglected Aspects. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol 22, Iss 2, 191–216. doi:10.1080/10427710050025411
19. *Leeman, J., Baquero, B., Bender, M., Choy-Brown, M., Ko, L. K., Nilsen, P., Wangen, M. ve Birken, S. A. (2019). Advancing the use of Organization Theory in İmplementation Science. Preventive Medicine, Vol 1,1-7. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105832
20. Li, T., Vedula, S. S., Hadar, N., Parkin, C., Lau, J. ve Dickersin, K. (2015). Innovations in Data Collection, Management, and Archiving for Systematic Reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol 162, Iss 4, 287–294. doi:10.7326/M14-1603
21. *Lin, S. H. ve Lin, T. M. Y. (2018). Medical Advice-Seeking Behaviors Based on Transaction Cost Theory. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, Vol 16, Iss1, 1–6. doi:10.1186/s12962-018-0167-y
22. Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J. ve Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195326543.001.0001
23. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. ve Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, Vol 6, Iss7, 1-6. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535
24. O’Reilly, J., Busse, R., Häkkinen, U., Or, Z., Street, A. ve Wiley, M. (2012). Paying for Hospital Care: The Experience with Implementing Activity-Based Funding in Five European Countries. Health Economics, Policy and Law, Vol 7, Iss 1, 73–101. doi:10.1017/S1744133111000314
25. Patole, S. (Ed.). (2021). Principles and Practice of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71921-0
26. Petticrew, M. ve Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1080/14733140600986250
27. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M. ve Britten, N. (2006). Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol 59, Iss, 1, 1-92.
28. Rao, P. (2005). Profile and Practice of Private Medical Practitioner in Rural India. Iss, 28, 40–9.
29. Reed, J. ve Baxter, P. (2009). Using Reference Databases. H. Cooper, L. Hedges ve J. Valentine (Ed.), The Handbook of Research Syn thesis and Meta-Analysis içinde (ss. 51–71), New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
30. Robins, J. (1987). Organizational Economics: Notes on the Use of Transaction-Cost Theory in the Study of Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 32, Iss 1, 68-86.
31. Rubin, A. ve Parrish, D. (2008). Locating Credible Studies for Evidence-Based Practice. K. Corcoran ve A. Roberts (Ed.), Social Workers Desk Reference içinde (ss. 1127 – 1136). New York: Oxford University Press.
32. *Ssennyonjo, A., Ssengooba, F., Criel, B., Titeca, K. ve Van Belle, S. (2022). Writing Budgets for Meetings and Teas?: A Multitheoretical Analysis of İntragovernmental Coordination for Multisectoral Action for Health in Uganda. BMJ Global Health, Vol 7 Iss 2, 1–16. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007990
33. Suematsu, C. (2014). Transaction Cost Management. Management for Professionals. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06889-3
34. Torgerson, C. (2003). Systematic Reviews. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
35. Toth, F. (2021). Comparative Health Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108775397
36. Wade, A. ve Gomersall, A. (2007). Search strategies. Workshop presented at the Seventh Annual International Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, London, England, May 14–16.
37. Wade, A. ve Rothstein, H. (2007). Systematic Reviews and İnformation Retrieval: Planning and İmplementing a Database Search. Workshop presented at the Seventh Annual International Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, London, England, May 14–16.
38. White, H. (2009). Scientific Communication and Literature Retrieval. H. Cooper, L. Hedges ve J. Valentine (Ed.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis içinde (ss. 51–71). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
39. WHO. (2022). “Global Health Expenditure Database”, https://apps. who. int/nha/database, (12.04.2022).
40. *Willem, A. ve Coopman, M. (2016). Motivational Paradigms for the Integration of a Belgian Hospital Network and Merger Presented in the Printed Press. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol 24, Iss 5, 811–834. doi:10.1108/IJOA-04-2013-0656
41. *Yang, C. W. (2016). Orchestrating Knowledge-Creating Networks: Lessons From Taiwan’s Health Services Sector. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol 28, Iss 6, 703–716. doi:10.1080/09537325.2016.1141194
42. *Yu, S. H. ve Chen, M. Y. (2013). Performance Impacts of Interorganizational Cooperation: A Transaction Cost Perspective. Service Industries Journal, Vol 33 Iss 13, 1223–1241. doi:10.1080/02642069.2013.815729