Background/Objectives: The comparative evaluation of health system performance is becoming increasingly critical for policy makers in the context of rising health expenditures, demographic ageing, and the deepening of health inequalities between countries. In the existing literature, a substantial proportion of studies addressing health performance either examine causal relationships based on single health outcomes or rely on a single multi criteria decision making (MCDM) method based on equal or subjective weighting. This situation may lead to limitations in terms of method sensitivity and the reliability of the resulting rankings. This study addresses an important gap in the literature by directly tackling method sensitivity through the integrated use of objective weighting and multiple ranking methods. The aim of this study is to evaluate the health system performance of OECD countries within an integrated MCDM framework based on objective weighting. Methods: The analysis covers 27 OECD countries and is based on key indicators representing health performance, such as life expectancy, avoidable mortality, infant mortality rate, and maternal mortality rate. Criterion weights are determined objectively using the CRITIC method, and country performance rankings are obtained using the MAIRCA and MARCOS methods. Results: The findings indicate that there are substantial differences in health system performance among OECD countries. The high level of consistency between the results obtained from different ranking methods supports the methodological robustness of the findings. Conclusions: In this respect, the study contributes to the literature on health system performance evaluation at both methodological and applied levels and provides policy makers with a more reliable framework for comparative analysis.
Kaya et al. (Wed,) studied this question.