SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Maliye Dergisi / 2012 / Sayı: 163

Health care perspective, the importance of leading indicators

Sağlık hizmeti açısından öncü göstergelerin önemi

İbrahim Attila ACAR
Pages
1–14
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, it is inadequate according to many OECD countries.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:For the guality-execution of existing public services, the current and expected data about them must be produced.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Health is also the case.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, it is inadequate according to many OECD countries.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

For the guality-execution of existing public services, the current and expected data about them must be produced. Health is also the case. The budget funds allocated to the situation and the main indicators of change should be monitored.In this study including analysis for Turkey, an improvement is observed compared to the past. However, it is inadequate according to many OECD countries.

Özet

Kamusal hizmetin nitelikli yürütülmesi için onunla ilgili mevcut ve beklenen verilerin üretilmesi gerekir. Sağlık da böyledir. Bütçeden ayrılan fonlar ile gerçekleşen durum ve temel göstergelerdeki değişme izlenmelidir. Türkiye için analizlerin yer aldığı bu çalışmada geçmişe göre bir iyileşme söz konusudur. Ancak pek çok OECD ülkesine göre yetersizdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ACAR, İ. A. (2012). Health care perspective, the importance of leading indicators. Maliye Dergisi, Sayı: 163, 1–14. https://ajindex.com/articles/79023

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. ABGS (2011), Bir Bakışta Sağlık Avrupa 2010, http://www.abgs.gov.tr/files/tprb/bir_bakis_saglik.pdf (01/08/2012)
  2. Altay, A. (2008), Sağlık Hizmetlerinin Sunumunda Yeni Açılımlar ve Türkiye Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, Sayıştay Dergisi, 64,33-58.
  3. Bailey, S.J. (2002),
  4. Public Sector Economics, Theory, Policy and Practice, 2nd. Ed., Palgrave Macmillan, England. Başol, K. (1994),
  5. Demografi, Anadolu Matbaası, İzmir.
  6. Desai, M. (2003), “Public Goods: A Historical Perspective”, Ed. I.Kaul, P.Conceiçao, K.Goulven ve R. Mendoza, Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization, New York, Oxford University Press.
  7. Holcombe, R.G. (1997), A Theory of the Theory of Public Goods, Rewiev of Austrian Economics, 10(1), 1-22.
  8. Musgrave, R.A. (1959),
  9. The Theory of Public Finance, New York, McGraw Hill. Mutlu, A. ve Işık, K.A. (2005),
  10. Sağlık Ekonomisine Giriş, Ekin Yayınları,
  11. Bursa. OECD, Health at a Glance 2011,http://www.oecd.org/health/healthpoliciesanddata/49105858.pdf
  12. Pickhardt, M. (2006), Fifty Years After Samuelson’s “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure”: What are We Left With?, Journal of History of Economic Thought, 28(4), 439-460.
  13. Samuelson, P.A. (1955), A Diagrammatic Exposition of a Theory of Public Expenditure, Rewiev of Economics and Statistics, November, 37, 350- 356,http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/UCSBpf/readings/samdiagram.pdf
  14. Süzek, S. (1985),İş Güvenliği Hukuku, Ankara.
  15. Tümerdem, Y. (1992), Halk Sağlığı (Toplum Hekimliği), Cilt:I, İstanbul.
  16. UNDP (2011),HDR,http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Tables.pdf (01/08/2012) WB (World Bank), (2011), World Development Report 2011, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington DC 20433. WB,http://www.worldbank.org WHO,http://www.who.int/nha/sha_revision/sha_2011_final1.pdf
  17. Yumuşak, İ.G. (1996),
  18. İktisadi Açıdan Nüfus Teorileri, Kocaeli Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 1, 48-66.