1 / 22

Methodological improvements of SHA: Examples of good practice

Methodological improvements of SHA: Examples of good practice. Markus Schneider Bruxelles, ONSS, Place Victor Horta, 20-21 septembre 2007 Organisé par Service public fédéral Sécurité sociale - SPP Politique scientifique - HIVA Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Outline. Concept of SHA1.0 + PG

rhea
Download Presentation

Methodological improvements of SHA: Examples of good practice

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. Methodological improvements of SHA: Examples of good practice Markus Schneider Bruxelles, ONSS, Place Victor Horta, 20-21 septembre 2007 Organisé par Service public fédéral Sécurité sociale - SPP Politique scientifique - HIVA Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

  2. Outline • Concept of SHA1.0 + PG • Criteria of good practice and improvements • Examples: NL, PT, D, CZ, F • Tools • Requests on SHA2.0

  3. Concept of SHA1.0

  4. Concept of SHA1.0+PG

  5. Actors, Activities, Inputs SHA1.0+PG

  6. Criteria of good practice • SHA1.0 Principles: • Comprehensiveness, Consistency (internal, over-time), Compatibility • Organisation of statistical process: Input, Throughput, Output (Metainformation, National Manual) • Transparency (Metainformation, Reporting Standards, National Manuals) • International comparability (external consistency)

  7. Methodological Improvements • Related to the compilation of the SHA Cube Health care and non health care production (Netherlands)Integration of human resources and cost of illness (Germany, Czech Republic) • Related to the compatibility of SHACo-ordination with sectors of SNA (Portugal) • Related to international comparabilityConcept of relative unit cost,EUCOMP AC/CC, TOSHA • Related to the concept of SHAValue-added concept, Health-added concept, Financing concept

  8. Example: NL • Objectives: internal consistency with other accounts SNA, ESSPROS, multiple use, • Responsibility: CBS, Health Statistics • Approach: Provider side (HC, HCR, NHC), reconsiliation with financing side, Including Social Care • Comprehensiveness: SHA Cube, Pilot compilations of Health personnel and Prices, Cost of Illness accounts (RIVM) • Timeliness: 1998-2005 • Issues: International comparability HF2.3, HC.3, HC5.2, Transparency (Non-health care),

  9. Example: PT • Objectives: internal consistency with SNA, • Responsibility: INE, SNA department • Approach: Reconsiliation SNA + Provider side + reconsiliation financing side • Comprehensiveness: SHA Cube, Pilot compilations of Prices • Timeliness: 2000-2005 • Issues: International comparability: Outpatient care, Transparency of private provision, health consumption of tourists

  10. PT: Consolidation with SNA Source: INE 2006

  11. Example: DE • Objectives: indepence of other accounts, limited links with other accounts SNA, ESSPROS, • Responsibility: StBA, Health Statistics • Approach: Financing side + reconsiliation providers side • Comprehensiveness: SHA Cube, HLA account incl. Health Industries, Cost of Illness accounts, • Timeliness: SHA 1992-2005, HLA 1995-2005, COI 2000, 2002, 2004 • Issues: International comparability HF2.3, Transparency (press brochures instead comprehensive tables)

  12. NHA HLA COIA Providers CFHMS-HP international national ICHA-HP WZ03 EuComp (Actors) DE: Linking German Health Accounting Systems Source: Cordes 2004, StBA

  13. Example: CZ • Objectives: indepence of other accounts, limited links with SNA, • Responsibility: CZSU, Health Statistics • Approach: Financing side (Individual accounts) + reconsiliation providers side • Comprehensiveness: SHA Cube and Cost of Illness accounts, • Timeliness: SHA 2000-2005, COI 2000-2005 • Issues: International comparability HF2.3, HC.3; Transparency ?

  14. Results page - database

  15. Summary of examples

  16. Tools • Inventories: Actors, Activities and costing, Prices, Data • Software Metadata: EUCOMP: HP Actors,HLA 1 Accounts (linked to EUCOMP) • Software Accounts: TOSHA: SHA Cube, HLA 2 Accounts (linked to EUCOMP) • COI: Disease List, Age classification

  17. IHAT Common Questionnaire TOSHA Output TOSHA Throughput TOSHA Input SHA 1.0 Software, License National Database Flexibility, Confidentiality, Interfaces

  18. Key assignment page

  19. Compilation page

  20. EUCOMP-ACC: International reconciliation

  21. International Reconciliation:Relative unit costs

  22. International Reconciliation:Relative unit costs of hospital care

More Related