IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/123635.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Efficiency and productivity gains of robotic surgery: the case of the English National Health Service

Author

Listed:
  • Maynou, Laia
  • McGuire, Alistair
  • Serra-Sastre, Victoria

Abstract

This paper examines the effect of new medical technology (robotic surgery) on efficiency gains and productivity changes for surgical treatment in patients with prostate cancer from the perspective of a public health sector organization. In particular, we consider three interrelated surgical technologies within the English National Health System: robotic, laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. Robotic and laparoscopic techniques are minimally invasive procedures with similar clinical benefits. While the clinical benefits in adopting robotic surgery over laparoscopic intervention are unproven, it requires a high initial investment cost and carries high on-going maintenance costs. Using data from Hospital Episode Statistics for the period 2000–2018, we observe growing volumes of prostatectomies over time, mostly driven by an increase in robotic-assisted surgeries, and further analyze whether hospital providers that adopted a robot see improved measures of throughput. We then quantify changes in total factor and labor productivity arising from the use of this technology. We examine the impact of robotic adoption on efficiency gains employing a staggered difference-in-difference estimator and find evidence of a 50% reduction in length of stay (LoS), 49% decrease in post-LoS and 44% and 46% decrease in postoperative visits after 1 year and 2 years, respectively. Productivity analysis shows the growth in radical prostatectomy volume is sustained with a relatively stable number of urology surgeons. The robotic technique increases total production at the hospital level between 21% and 26%, coupled with a 29% improvement in labor productivity. These benefits lend some, but not overwhelming support for the large-scale hospital investments in such costly technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Maynou, Laia & McGuire, Alistair & Serra-Sastre, Victoria, 2024. "Efficiency and productivity gains of robotic surgery: the case of the English National Health Service," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 123635, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:123635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/123635/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/170cd4sul89ddpnfuomvfm0jc0 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2020. "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2188-2244.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Céline Antonin & Simon Bunel & Xavier Jaravel, 2020. "What Are the Labor and Product Market Effects of Automation? New Evidence from France," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03403062, HAL.
    4. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/170cd4sul89ddpnfuomvfm0jc0 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/3n1gbsj6rs80ipqv9d42nfd0ge is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2017. "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series dp-297, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    7. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/3n1gbsj6rs80ipqv9d42nfd0ge is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Joseph P. Newhouse, 1992. "Medical Care Costs: How Much Welfare Loss?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 3-21, Summer.
    9. Baker, Andrew C. & Larcker, David F. & Wang, Charles C.Y., 2022. "How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 370-395.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Siena Daniele, & Zago Riccardo., 2021. "Job Polarization and the Flattening of the Price Phillips Curve," Working papers 819, Banque de France.
    2. Laia Maynou & Alistair McGuire & Victoria Serra‐Sastre, 2024. "Efficiency and productivity gains of robotic surgery: The case of the English National Health Service," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(8), pages 1831-1856, August.
    3. Uwe JIRJAHN & Stephen C. SMITH, 2018. "Nonunion Employee Representation: Theory And The German Experience With Mandated Works Councils," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(1), pages 201-233, March.
    4. Ufuk Akcigit & Sina T. Ates, 2023. "What Happened to US Business Dynamism?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(8), pages 2059-2124.
    5. Lütkenhorst, Wilfried, 2018. "Creating wealth without labour? Emerging contours of a new techno-economic landscape," IDOS Discussion Papers 11/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    6. Joshua Greenstein, 2020. "The Precariat Class Structure and Income Inequality among US Workers: 1980–2018," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 52(3), pages 447-469, September.
    7. Alain Cohn & Tobias Gesche & Michel André Maréchal, 2022. "Honesty in the Digital Age," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 827-845, February.
    8. Dario Cords & Klaus Prettner, 2022. "Technological unemployment revisited: automation in a search and matching framework [The future of work: meeting the global challenges of demographic change and automation]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 115-135.
    9. Daron Acemoglu & Gary W. Anderson & David N. Beede & Catherine Buffington & Eric E. Childress & Emin Dinlersoz & Lucia S. Foster & Nathan Goldschlag & John C. Haltiwanger & Zachary Kroff & Pascual Res, 2024. "Automation and the Workforce: A Firm-Level View from the 2019 Annual Business Survey," NBER Chapters, in: Technology, Productivity, and Economic Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Colombo, Emilio & Mercorio, Fabio & Mezzanzanica, Mario, 2019. "AI meets labor market: Exploring the link between automation and skills," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 27-37.
    11. Sonal Pandey, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence and Food Industry," RAIS Conference Proceedings 2021 0058, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies.
    12. Alejandro Micco, 2019. "The Impact of Automation in Developed Countries," Working Papers wp480, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    13. Goos, Maarten & Rademakers, Emilie & Röttger, Ronja, 2021. "Routine-Biased technical change: Individual-Level evidence from a plant closure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    14. Li, Daiyue & Jin, Yanhong & Cheng, Mingwang, 2024. "Unleashing the power of industrial robotics on firm productivity: Evidence from China," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 500-520.
    15. Ajay Agrawal & Joshua Gans & Avi Goldfarb, 2019. "Economic Policy for Artificial Intelligence," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 139-159.
    16. Pierre Barral & Mehdi Senouci, 2018. "Walking on two legs: Growth accounting with labor-saving and capital-saving technical change," Working Papers hal-01709599, HAL.
    17. Gries, Thomas & Naudé, Wim, 2022. "Modelling artificial intelligence in economics," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 56, pages 1-12.
    18. Andrea Salvatori & Seetha Menon & Wouter Zwysen, 2018. "The effect of computer use on job quality: Evidence from Europe," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 200, OECD Publishing.
    19. Lankisch, Clemens & Prettner, Klaus & Prskawetz, Alexia, 2019. "How can robots affect wage inequality?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 161-169.
    20. Rodimiro Rodrigo, 2022. "Robot Adoption, Organizational Capital and the Productivity Paradox," Working Papers gueconwpa~22-22-03, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    efficiency gains; labor productivity; robotic surgery; staggered difference-in-differences; total factor productivity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:123635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.