Effects of hospital planning reforms on access, costs, efficiency, and quality of care in OECD countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many OECD countries have implemented hospital planning reforms to rising healthcare costs, demographic changes, and concerns about access, efficiency, and quality of care. Despite broad implementation, evidence on effectiveness remains fragmented and country-specific. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence on the effects of hospital planning reforms aross four outcome domains: access, costs, efficiency, and quality of care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following Cochrane methodology, searching PubMed and Web of Science (January 2000 - September 2025). Studies were categorized into four intervention types - centralization, minimum volume requirements (MVR), performance-based targets, and governance and ownership restructuring. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for quasi-experimental designs. Where data permitted, random-effects meta-analyses pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) for access and efficiency and risk differences (RD) for quality outcomes. RESULTS: 26 studies from 12 countries were included. Centralization increased patient travel distances and reduced length of stay (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.01) and complications (RD -14.52 pp, -25.95 to -3.09), and, jointly with performance-based targets, 30-day readmissions (RD -0.43 pp, -0.65 to -0.22). Mortality effects varied by timepoint and intervention: short-term endpoints were largely non-significant, whereas 90-day mortality was reduced under centralization (RD -0.80 pp, -1.25 to -0.35) and 60-day mortality under MVR (RD -2.00 pp, -2.82 to -1.18). Survival was non-significant throughout. No study examined costs. CONCLUSION: The absence of cost evidence is a critical gap. Substantial heterogeneity reflects variation in reform design and context, underscoring the need to interpret findings by intervention and country conditions.