Decomposing Cost Efficiency in Regional Long-term Care Provision in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many developed countries face a growing need for long-term care provision because of population ageing. Japan is one such example, given its population's longevity and low birth rate. In this study, we examine the efficiency of Japan's regional long-term care system in FY2010 by performing a data envelopment analysis, a non-parametric frontier approach, on prefectural data and separating cost efficiency into technical, allocative, and price efficiencies under different average unit costs across regions. In doing so, we elucidate the structure of cost inefficiency by incorporating a method for restricting weight flexibility to avoid unrealistic concerns arising from zero optimal weight. The results indicate that technical inefficiency accounts for the highest share of losses, followed by price inefficiency and allocation inefficiency. Moreover, the majority of technical inefficiency losses stem from labor costs, particularly those for professional caregivers providing institutional services. We show that the largest share of allocative inefficiency losses can also be traced to labor costs for professional caregivers providing institutional services, while the labor provision of in-home care services shows an efficiency gain. However, although none of the prefectures gains efficiency by increasing the number of professional caregivers for institutional services, quite a few prefectures would gain allocative efficiency by increasing capital inputs for institutional services. These results indicate that preferred policies for promoting efficiency might vary from region to region, and thus, policy implications should be drawn with care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".