International comparison of health spending and utilization among people with complex multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore cross-country differences in spending and utilization across different domains of care for a multimorbid persona with heart failure and diabetes. DATA SOURCES: We used individual-level administrative claims or registry data from inpatient and outpatient health care sectors compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States (US). DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data collected by ICCONIC partners. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed age-sex standardized utilization and spending of an older person (65-90 years) hospitalized with a heart failure exacerbation and a secondary diagnosis of diabetes across five domains of care: hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post-acute rehabilitative care, and outpatient drugs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Sample sizes ranged from n = 1270 in Spain to n = 21,803 in the United States. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) ranged from 76.2 (5.6) in the Netherlands to 80.3 (6.8) in Sweden. We observed substantial variation in spending and utilization across care settings. On average, England spent $10,956 per person in hospital care while the United States spent$30,877. The United States had a shorter length of stay over the year (18.9 days) compared to France (32.9) and Germany (33.4). The United States spent more days in facility-based rehabilitative care than other countries. Australia spent $421 per person in primary care, while Spain (Aragon) spent$1557. The United States and Canada had proportionately more visits to specialist providers than primary care providers. Across almost all sectors, the United States spent more than other countries, suggesting higher prices per unit. CONCLUSION: Across 11 countries, there is substantial variation in health care spending and utilization for a complex multimorbid persona with heart failure and diabetes. Drivers of spending vary across countries, with the United States being the most expensive country due to high prices and higher use of facility-based rehabilitative care

Differences in health outcomes for high-need high-cost patients across high-income countries.

ObjectiveThis study explores variations in outcomes of care for two types of patient personas-an older frail person recovering from a hip fracture and a multimorbid older patient with congestive heart failure (CHF) and diabetes.Data sourcesWe used individual-level patient data from 11 health systems.Study designWe compared inpatient mortality, mortality, and readmission rates at 30, 90, and 365 days. For the hip fracture persona, we also calculated time to surgery. Outcomes were standardized by age and sex.Data collection/extraction methodsData was compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes and Needs in Care across 11 countries for the years 2016-2017 (or nearest): Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.Principal findingsThe hip sample across ranged from 1859 patients in Aragon, Spain, to 42,849 in France. Mean age ranged from 81.2 in Switzerland to 84.7 in Australia, and the majority of hip patients across countries were female. The congestive heart failure (CHF) sample ranged from 742 patients in England to 21,803 in the United States. Mean age ranged from 77.2 in the United States to 80.3 in Sweden, and the majority of CHF patients were males. Average in-hospital mortality across countries was 4.1%. for the hip persona and 6.3% for the CHF persona. At the year mark, the mean mortality across all countries was 25.3% for the hip persona and 32.7% for CHF persona. Across both patient types, England reported the highest mortality at 1 year followed by the United States. Readmission rates for all periods were higher for the CHF persona than the hip persona. At 30 days, the average readmission rate for the hip persona was 13.8% and 27.6% for the CHF persona.ConclusionAcross 11 countries, there are meaningful differences in health system outcomes for two types of patients

Differences in health care spending and utilization among older frail adults in high-income countries: ICCONIC hip fracture persona.

ObjectiveThis study explores differences in spending and utilization of health care services for an older person with frailty before and after a hip fracture.Data sourcesWe used individual-level patient data from five care settings.Study designWe compared utilization and spending of an older person aged older than 65 years for 365 days before and after a hip fracture across 11 countries and five domains of care as follows: acute hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post-acute rehabilitative care, and outpatient drugs. Utilization and spending were age and sex standardized..Data collection/extraction methodsThe data were compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries as follows: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.Principal findingsThe sample ranged from 1859 patients in Spain to 42,849 in France. Mean age ranged from 81.2 in Switzerland to 84.7 in Australia. The majority of patients across countries were female. Relative to other countries, the United States had the lowest inpatient length of stay (11.3), but the highest number of days were spent in post-acute care rehab (100.7) and, on average, had more visits to specialist providers (6.8 per year) than primary care providers (4.0 per year). Across almost all sectors, the United States spent more per person than other countries per unit ($13,622 per hospitalization,$233 per primary care visit, $386 per MD specialist visit). Patients also had high expenditures in the year prior to the hip fracture, mostly concentrated in the inpatient setting.ConclusionAcross 11 high-income countries, there is substantial variation in health care spending and utilization for an older person with frailty, both before and after a hip fracture. The United States is the most expensive country due to high prices and above average utilization of post-acute rehab care

A methodology for identifying high-need, high-cost patient personas for international comparisons.

ObjectiveTo establish a methodological approach to compare two high-need, high-cost (HNHC) patient personas internationally.Data sourcesLinked individual-level administrative data from the inpatient and outpatient sectors compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.Study designWe outline a methodological approach to identify HNHC patient types for international comparisons that reflect complex, priority populations defined by the National Academy of Medicine. We define two patient profiles using accessible patient-level datasets linked across different domains of care-hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post-acute rehabilitative care, long-term care, home-health care, and outpatient drugs. The personas include a frail older adult with a hip fracture with subsequent hip replacement and an older person with complex multimorbidity, including heart failure and diabetes. We demonstrate their comparability by examining the characteristics and clinical diagnoses captured across countries.Data collection/extraction methodsData collected by ICCONIC partners.Principal findingsAcross 11 countries, the identification of HNHC patient personas was feasible to examine variations in healthcare utilization, spending, and patient outcomes. The ability of countries to examine linked, individual-level data varied, with the Netherlands, Canada, and Germany able to comprehensively examine care across all seven domains, whereas other countries such as England, Switzerland, and New Zealand were more limited. All countries were able to identify a hip fracture persona and a heart failure persona. Patient characteristics were reassuringly similar across countries.ConclusionAlthough there are cross-country differences in the availability and structure of data sources, countries had the ability to effectively identify comparable HNHC personas for international study. This work serves as the methodological paper for six accompanying papers examining differences in spending, utilization, and outcomes for these personas across countries

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19: A comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries

Provider payment mechanisms were adjusted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our objective was to review adjustments for hospitals and healthcare professionals across 20 countries. We developed an analytical framework distinguishing between payment adjustments compensating income loss and those covering extra costs related to COVID-19. Information was extracted from the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) and classified according to the framework. We found that income loss was not a problem in countries where professionals were paid by salary or capitation and hospitals received global budgets. In countries where payment was based on activity, income loss was compensated through budgets and higher fees. New FFS payments were introduced to incentivize remote services. Payments for COVID-19 related costs included new fees for out- and inpatient services but also new PD and DRG tariffs for hospitals. Budgets covered the costs of adjusting wards, creating new (ICU) beds, and hiring staff. We conclude that public payers assumed most of the COVID-19-related financial risk. In view of future pandemics policymakers should work to increase resilience of payment systems by: (1) having systems in place to rapidly adjust payment systems; (2) being aware of the economic incentives created by these adjustments such as cost-containment or increasing the number of patients or services, that can result in unintended consequences such as risk selection or overprovision of care; and (3) periodically evaluating the effects of payment adjustments on access and quality of care