An innovative benefit‐of‐the‐doubt approach for health system effectiveness: a global case study on amenable mortality

Abstract Health system performance assessment (HSPA) is essential for health planning and to improve population health. One of the HSPA domains is related to effectiveness, which can be represented considering different dimensions. Composite indicators can be used to summarize complex constructs involving several indicators. One example of such efforts is the Healthcare Access and Quality Index from the Global Burden of Diseases Study, in which different causes of mortality amenable to health care are summarized in this index through principal component analysis and exploratory factor analysis. While these approaches use the variance of the indicators, marginal improvement is not considered, that is, the distance to the best practice frontier. In this study we propose an innovative benefit‐of‐the‐doubt approach to combine frontier analysis and composite indicators, using amenable mortality estimates for 188 countries. In particular, we include flexible aggregating weighting schemes and a robust and conditional approach. The dual formulation gives information on the peers and the potential mortality rate reduction targets considering the background conditions. In absolute terms, Andorra and high‐income countries are the most effective regarding healthcare access and quality, while sub‐Saharan African and South Asian countries are the least effective. North African and Middle Eastern countries benefit the most when epidemiological patterns, geographical proximity, and country development status are considered.