As in the response to modeling and notation of DEA with strong and weak disposable outputs by Gary D. Ferrier, Michael D. Rosko, and Vivian G. Valdmanis, we, too, acknowledge that there were the same errors in our notation in the paper “is more better? An analysis of hospital outcomes and efficiency with a DEA model of output congestion” More specifically, the “μ” should be on both the weak and strong disposability constraints on outputs [1, 3]. And, as in the case of Ferrier et al., the findings we reported were correct as we used the OnFront software. We thank the authors, L. Kuntz and S. Sülz [2], for identifying the errors in our paper.
References
Clement J, Valdmanis V, Bazzoli G, Zhao M, Chukmaitov A (2008) Is more better? An analysis of hospital outcomes and efficiency with a DEA model of output congestion. Health Care Manage Sci 11(1):67–77
Kuntz L, Sülz S, Comment (2011) Modeling and notation of DEA with strong and weak disposable outputs. Health Care Manage Sci 14(4) forthcoming
Ferrier GD, Rosko MD, Valdmanis VG (2011) Response to modeling and notation of DEA with strong and weak disposable outputs. Health Care Manage Sci forthcoming
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clement, J.P., Valdmanis, V.G., Bazzoli, G.J. et al. Response to modeling and notation of DEA with strong and weak disposable outputs. Health Care Manag Sci 14, 391 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-011-9162-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-011-9162-y