Re-thinking performance assessment for primary care : opinion of the Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health

Background: In 2017, the European Commission (EC) identified as a policy priority the performance assessment of primary care systems, which relates to a country’s primary care structure, services delivery and outcomes. The EC requested its Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health (Expert Panel) to provide an opinion on ways for improving performance assessment of primary care. Objectives: To provide an overview of domains and dimensions to be taken into consideration in assessing primary care and specific indicators to be collected and analysed to improve understanding of primary care performance. Methods: A sub-group of the Expert Panel performed a literature review. The opinion was drafted, improved and approved through working-group discussions, consultations with the EC, the Expert Group on Health Systems Performance Assessment, and a public hearing. Results: Drawing on the main characteristics of primary care, we propose essential elements of a primary care performance assessment system based on specific indicators. We identified ten domains with accompanying dimensions for which comparative key indicators and descriptive indicators are proposed: (1) universal and accessible care, (2) integrated, (3) person-centred, (4) comprehensive and community-oriented care, (5) provided by a team accountable for addressing a vast majority of personal health needs, (6) sustained partnership with patients and informal caregivers, (7) coordination, (8) continuity of care, (9) primary care organization, and (10) human resources. Conclusion: The identified characteristics and criteria for development of a primary care performance assessment system provides a starting point for strengthening the coherence of assessment frameworks across countries and exchanging best practices

How to govern the digital transformation of health services.

The impact of digitalization of health services has been profound and is expected to be even more profound in the future. It is important to evaluate whether digital health services contribute to health system goals in an optimal way. This should be done at the level of the service, not the 'digital transformation'. Decisions to adopt new digital health services, at different levels of the health care system, are ideally based on evidence regarding their performance in light of health system goals. In order to evaluate this, a broad perspective should be taken in evaluations of digital health services. Attainment of the broad health system goals, including quality, efficiency and equity, are objectives against which to judge new digital health services. These goals in a broad sense are unaltered by the process of digitalization. Governance should be designed and tailored in such a way to capture all relevant changes in an adequate way. When evaluating digital health services many specific aspects need to be considered. Like for other innovations and (new) technologies, such promises may or may not materialize and potential benefits may also be accompanied by unintended and/or negative (side) effects in the short or long term. Hence, the introduction, implementation, use and funding of digital health technologies should be carefully evaluated and monitored. Governments should play a more active role in the further optimization both of the process of decision making (both at the central and decentral level) and the related outcomes. They need to find a balance between centralized and decentralized activity. Moreover, the broader preparation of the health care system to be able to deal with digitalization, from education, through financial and regulatory preconditions, to implementation of monitoring systems to monitor its effects on health system performance remains important

Health care in post-crisis South Europe: Inequalities in access and reform trajectories

The European debt crisis stimulated debate about the future of national health systems. The objective of this article is to contribute to this debate by examining any changes in the scope and content of universal coverage and underlying pattern of solidarity in South Europe. Access to health care provides the vantage point for our analysis. Inequalities in access are scrutinized along a number of dimensions by using data from various sources. Our main conclusions clearly show that the public health care systems in Italy and, particularly, in Spain weathered the crisis pretty well and retained their universalistic features. Nonetheless, rising supplemental private coverage (of an "occupational-mutualist" type) adversely impacts access, but it is unclear how this will unfold in the near future. Tackling fragmentation through expansion and equalization of coverage, though for a comparatively "lean" basket of provisions, has been the focus of reforms in Portugal and Greece. This keeps private spending high and sustains inequalities, whereas any prospects for a stronger variant of universalism remain an open question