1 / 57

Public reporting and accountability

Public reporting and accountability. The Dutch case Gert Westert Professor of Health Services Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre; Head DHCPR, National Institute of Public Health (2006 – 2011). Dutch health care : brief history.

dessa
Download Presentation

Public reporting and accountability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Public reporting and accountability The Dutch case Gert Westert Professor of Health Services Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre; Head DHCPR, National Institute of Public Health(2006 – 2011)

  2. Dutch health care: brief history • Untill 1940: no government regulation with respect to health insurance: private initiatives • 1941: mandatory public health insurance for low- and middle income groups • 1970-1985: Pressure on central goal: universal access, government plays important role • 1980s focus on control of costs • 2000: awareness of side effects of supply-side regulation, focus on quality. New paradigm: • From supply-oriented to demand-oriented (patient-centered care) • More important role for health insurers • More room for providers • Efficiency through managed competition

  3. Context: regulated competition • Dekker – report (CEO Philips); 1984 • “The Dutch government believes the performance potential of the health care system can be substantialle boosted if centralised state control makes room for a decentralised system of regulated competition” (Ministry of Health, 2004) • 2006 New Health Insurance Act

  4. “More market elements” • Consumers (18+) have to take out private insurance and receive a government defined health insurance package (broadanddeep) • Insurers are obliged to accept all applicants • Health insurers compete, and critically purchase services from providers • Providers will provide “more for less”, in terms of access, quality, costs • Government takes backseat; • Less “controlitis” and central planning, increasingcompetition • Speed up technicalandorganizationalinnovations • Increase responsiveness

  5. Regulated competition • Dutch Health Care Authority (Nza) controls the right functioning of the three markets • Health Care Inspectorate (IGZ) sets quality and safety standards • Health Care Insurance Board (CVZ) advises on the cost-effectiveness of the insurance package (toobroad, toodeep?) • MoH responsible for access, quality, costs, but operates at distance • Website to support citizens (Kies Beter/ ChooseBetter) • Indenpendentresearchers monitor (un)intendedeffectsand change: DHCPR

  6. Public Reporting Performance assessment • Public Health Status and Forecasts report • State of Public Health • Since 1993, fifth edition 2010, next 2014 • Health Care Performance report • State of Health Care • Since 2006, third edition 2010 (May), next 2014

  7. DHCPR • CommisionedbyMoH; independence? • Target group: Dutch citizens, representedby members of Parliament • Describe access, qualityandcosts of healthcare system (prevention – cure and long term care) • Uselimitednumber of macro indicators (150) • Time series comparisons • International comparisons • Regionalvariations/ benchmarking • Patiënt perspective • Focus on outcomes • Pay attention to: efficiency, effect of reforms

  8. From assessment to action

  9. DHCPR: used? • Bridging the gap betweenscienceand policy is …”itisn’t love at first sight” • MoHprefers more thanonesource (partner) • SendtoParliamentbyMoH • Useall sources availableandsummarize • Providekeymessagesandan executive summary • Provide a research agenda (Chapter 6: Towards the next … • Stick toyourrole: evidenceandscience • Keep in mind: healthcare is aboutvalueforpatients

  10. Issues todiscuss • What makes this urgent in the Australian context? Accountability issues. • What needs to happen in Australia to get PR established? Barriers and enablers. • Role of Independence and engagement all stakeholders.

  11. lunchbreak

  12. Does it work, the Dutch model? Most important issues 2013: • Access is good, qualityvaries • Insurers tend to contract on (total) price and less on quality, but licensetooperate is at stake … • System is focussed on volume of healthcare; shift towards value for patients needed • Expenditure growth not sustainable … 14% GDP • Transparancyandquality information: opaque, but improving, focus on outcomes

  13. Expenditure growth notsustainable 14% GDP Healthcare reforms 2006 Health expenditures percentage GDP

  14. Does this work (in a period of economic downturn)?

  15. Dutch GP’s: 59 percent state thatpatientsreceivetoomuch care IHP 2012, Commonwealth Fund

  16. “For a few dollars more”: well spent? • Waiting lists (2001): ∨ • Hospital productivity: ∧ • Life expectancy ∧ Pay for volume Elderly use more services, lower mortality

  17. Is thistoomuch or valuefor money? • No waiting lists: overtreatment? • Expenditures up: price and volume issues (cataract surgery) • Practice variation huge, but invisible (IQ healthcare, 2012) • GPs and hospital physicians: “live in separate worlds” • Separate budgets and income schemes induce overdiagnosis and - treatment • GP per enrolee/ service (60/40); • Hospital (physician) paid fee for service/ volume

  18. What’s next • Government: expenditure / hospital volume growth restricted (2.5%) • Out-of-pocket 50 EURO for visit ER (bypassing the GP) • 350 EURO deductible for hospital care • Tracking unnecessary or unwarranted care (20 – 35%) • TRANSPARANCY: how much we spend; what we spend our money on (activities) and what the outcome for patients is, but … disruptive • Nobody really wants to know: payer, provider, politicians caught in a trap >>> patients can help

  19. Geographicperspective Utilisation (VOLUME)? Expenditures? Outcomes (VALUE)?

  20. Back hernia, CTS Prostate Gallbladder Varicose veins Tonsillectomies Cataract Kneereplacements Dutch Atlas of Health Care Variation: Elective surgery 1. Huge variation in activities (pilot) 2. What is the price of activities at local level? 3. What is the value for patients? We don’t know? Need to measure outcomes

  21. http://praktijkvariatie.depraktijkindex.nl

  22. The Federation of Patientsand Consumer Organisations in the Netherlands (NPCF).

  23. http://praktijkvariatie.depraktijkindex.nl

  24. “We have a problem” • Neurosurgeonpresentedtocolleagues (Wilco Peul): back hernia surgery • Factor 3 to 4 betweencatchmentareas

  25. Response “brothers in arms” • Data isn’t right • Data maybe right, notmyproblem • My patients are different • Let’s take a look

  26. Uitspraak “50% van de zorg die wij bieden is onzin, we weten alleen niet welke 50%” (oncologe)

  27. Why? • Medical uncertainty is huge • 50% is effective • We see more, but far less important things • Professional autonomy (in isolation) • Cookbook medicine • Art and improvisation versus scientific approach

  28. What is definitely wrong • We payfor “income”, notforoutcome • Quantitydominatesquality • Doingdominates“watchfull waiting” • More is better >>> Less is more

  29. 1

  30. 2 Categorize care in 3 categories • Effective care: 25% • Preference-sensitive care: 25% • Supply-sensitive care: 50%

More Related