The Doctor and the Market: About the Influence of Market Reforms on the Professional Medical Ethics of Surgeons and General Practitioners in The Netherlands

To explore whether market reforms in a health care system affect medical professional ethics of hospital-based specialists on the one hand and physicians in independent practices on the other. Qualitative interviews with 27 surgeons and 28 general practitioners in The Netherlands, held 2–3 years after a major overhaul of the Dutch health care system involving several market reforms. Surgeons now regularly advertise their work (while this was forbidden in the past) and pay more attention to patients with relatively minor afflictions, thus deviating from codes of ethics that oblige physicians to treat each other as brothers and to treat patients according to medical need. Dutch GPs have abandoned their traditional reticence and their fear of medicalization. They now seem to treat more in accordance with patients’ preferences and less in accordance with medical need. Market reforms do affect medical professional principles, and it is doubtful whether these changes were intended when Dutch policy makers decided to introduce market elements in the health care system. Policy makers in other countries considering similar reforms should pay attention to these results

Dutch healthcare reform: did it result in performance improvement of health plans? A comparison of consumer experiences over time

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many countries have introduced elements of managed competition in their healthcare system with the aim to accomplish more efficient and demand-driven health care. Simultaneously, generating and reporting of comparative healthcare information has become an important quality-improvement instrument. We examined whether the introduction of managed competition in the Dutch healthcare system along with public reporting of quality information was associated with performance improvement in health plans.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Experiences of consumers with their health plan were measured in four consecutive years (2005-2008) using the CQI^®health plan instrument 'Experiences with Healthcare and Health Insurer'. Data were available of 13,819 respondents (response = 45%) of 30 health plans in 2005, of 8,266 respondents (response = 39%) of 32 health plans in 2006, of 8,088 respondents (response = 34%) of 32 health plans in 2007, and of 7,183 respondents (response = 31%) of 32 health plans in 2008. We performed multilevel regression analyses with three levels: respondent, health plan and year of measurement. Per year and per quality aspect, we estimated health plan means while adjusting for consumers' age, education and self-reported health status. We tested for linear and quadratic time effects using chi-squares.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The overall performance of health plans increased significantly from 2005 to 2008 on four quality aspects. For three other aspects, we found that the overall performance first declined and then increased from 2006 to 2008, but the performance in 2008 was not better than in 2005. The overall performance of health plans did not improve more often for quality aspects that were identified as important areas of improvement in the first year of measurement. On six out of seven aspects, the performance of health plans that scored below average in 2005 increased more than the performance of health plans that scored average and/or above average in that year.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We found mixed results concerning the effects of managed competition on the performance of health plans. To determine whether managed competition in the healthcare system leads to quality improvement in health plans, it is important to examine whether and for what reasons health plans initiate improvement efforts.</p

The Dutch health insurance reform: switching between insurers, a comparison between the general population and the chronically ill and disabled

Background: On 1 January 2006 a number of far-reaching changes in the Dutch health insurance system came into effect. In the new system of managed competition consumer mobility plays an important role. Consumers are free to change their insurer and insurance plan every year. The idea is that consumers who are not satisfied with the premium or quality of care provided will opt for a different insurer. This would force insurers to strive for good prices and quality of care. Internationally, the Dutch changes are under the attention of both policy makers and researchers. Questions answered in this article relate to switching behaviour, reasons for switching, and differences between population categories. Methods: Postal questionnaires were sent to 1516 members of the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel and to 3757 members of the National Panel of the Chronically ill and Disabled (NPCD) in April 2006. The questionnaire was returned by 1198 members of the Consumer Panel (response 79%) and by 3211 members of the NPCD (response 86%). Among other things, questions were asked about choices for a health insurer and insurance plan and the reasons for this choice. Results: Young and healthy people switch insurer more often than elderly or people in bad health. The chronically ill and disabled do not switch less often than the general population when both populations are comparable on age, sex and education. For the general population, premium is more important than content, while the chronically ill and disabled value content of the insurance package as well. However, quality of care is not important for either group as a reason for switching. Conclusion: There is increased mobility in the new system for both the general population and the chronically ill and disabled. This however is not based on quality of care. If reasons for switching are unrelated to the quality of care, it is hard to believe that switching influences the quality of care. As yet there are no signs of barriers to switch insurer for the chronically ill and disabled. This however could change in the future and it is therefore important to monitor changes.

What evidence exists on the use of pollinator tools in agricultural landscapes: A systematic map protocol

Abstract The widespread decline of insect pollinators poses a conservation concern and threatens both the pollination of wild plants and crops. Primary drivers of pollinator decline are habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, which to a large extent result from agricultural intensification. Numerous tools have been developed to aid decision‐making relating to insect pollinators and pollination in agricultural landscapes. These tools provide valuable information for understanding the drivers of insect population changes in agricultural areas and projecting future population trends in response to various actions. However, there is currently no comprehensive list of available tools, and their usability (ease of use and acceptability for conducting tasks) for decision‐making purposes. Therefore, there is an urgent need to understand what tools have been designed, their commonalities and their suitability for different decision context, to ensure the effectiveness of pollinator‐friendly management and conservation actions. In this study, we present a systematic map methodology that will collate and catalogue relevant tools relating to insect pollinators and/or pollination in agricultural landscapes. We will conduct searches in bibliographic databases such as ‘Web of Science Core Collection’ and ‘Scopus’ using a tested search string. Additionally, we will manually search grey literature using web‐based engines (Google Scholar and ProQuest) and websites. After removing duplicates, the search results will be screened sequentially based on predetermined eligibility criteria, including title, abstract, and full text. The extracted data will provide metadata for mapping the usability of the tools, utilising descriptive tables, statistics and figures. Usability will be assessed across three categories: the tool itself, the user and the user‐context. The results from this mapping exercise can support researchers in synthesising progress in terms of pollinator‐related tools, and direct research and development efforts to bridge the identified gaps and shortcomings. It will also have significant implications for managers, stakeholders and policymakers, by providing guidance on existing tools and supporting informed tool choices