Access, choice, and guidance in German Health Care: An account of health policy reforms since 2004

This paper discusses the influence of recent health care reform acts in Germany on choice, guidance and access from the perspective of patients, insured, insurers, and health care providers. Particular emphasis is put on health policy reforms since 2004, i.e. the Social Health Insurance Modernization Act 2004 and the most recent Social Health Insurance Competition Strengthening Act 2007. Various aspects of the reforms are included as long as they have an influence on access, choice, and choice to health care in Germany. -- Dieser Beitrag diskutiert den Einfluss vergangener gesundheitspolitischer Reformgesetze in Deutschland auf Wahl- und Wechselmöglichkeiten, Steuerung und Zugang aus der Sicht von Patienten, Versicherten, Versicherungen und Leistungsanbietern. Dabei werden insbesondere das Gesetz zur Modernisierung der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung 2004 (GMG) sowie das Gesetz zur Stärkung des Wettbewerbs in der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung 2007 (GKV-WSG) betrachtet.

Integrated primary care in Germany: the road ahead

Problem statement: Health care delivery in Germany is highly fragmented, resulting in poor vertical and horizontal integration and a system that is focused on curing acute illness or single diseases instead of managing patients with more complex or chronic conditions, or managing the health of determined populations. While it is now widely accepted that a strong primary care system can help improve coordination and responsiveness in health care, primary care has so far not played this role in the German system. Primary care physicians traditionally do not have a gatekeeper function; patients can freely choose and directly access both primary and secondary care providers, making coordination and cooperation within and across sectors difficult. <br><br> Description of policy development: Since 2000, driven by the political leadership and initiative of the Federal Ministry of Health, the German Bundestag has passed several laws enabling new forms of care aimed to improve care coordination and to strengthen primary care as a key function in the German health care system. These include on the contractual side integrated care contracts, and on the delivery side disease management programmes, medical care centres, gatekeeping and ‘community medicine nurses’. <br><br> Conclusion and discussion: Recent policy reforms improved framework conditions for new forms of care. There is a clear commitment by the government and the introduction of selective contracting and financial incentives for stronger cooperation constitute major drivers for change. First evaluations, especially of disease management programmes, indicate that the new forms of care improve coordination and outcomes. Yet the process of strengthening primary care as a lever for better care coordination has only just begun. Future reforms need to address other structural barriers for change such as fragmented funding streams, inadequate payment systems, the lack of standardized IT systems and trans-sectoral education and training of providers

Are Health Problems Systemic? Politics of Access and Choice under Beveridge and Bismarck Systems

Industrialised countries face similar challenges for improving the performance of their health system. Nevertheless the nature and intensity of the reforms required are largely determined by each country's basic social security model. This paper looks at the main differences in performance of five countries and reviews their recent reform experience, focusing on three questions: Are there systematic differences in performance of Beveridge and Bismarck-type systems? What are the key parameters of health care system which underlie these differences? Have recent reforms been effective? Our results do not suggest that one system-type performs consistently better than the other. In part, this may be explained by the heterogeneity in organisational design and governance both within and across these systems. Insufficient attention to those structural differences may explain the limited success of a number of recent reforms.Health system, Beveridge, Bismarck, reforms, performance

Are health problems systemic? Politics of access and choice under Beveridge and Bismarck systems

Industrialised countries face similar challenges for improving the performance of their health system. Nevertheless, the nature and intensity of the reforms required are largely determined by each country’s basic social security model. Most reforms in Beveridge-type systems have sought to increase choice and reduce waiting times while those in major Bismarck-type systems have focused on cost control by constraining the choice of providers. This paper looks at the main differences in performance of five countries and reviews their recent reform experience, focusing on three questions: Are there systematic differences in performance of Beveridge and Bismarck-type systems? What are the key parameters of healthcare system, which underlie these differences? Have recent reforms been effective? Our results do not suggest that one system-type performs consistently better than the other. In part, this may be explained by the heterogeneity in organisational design and governance both within and across these systems. Insufficient attention to those structural differences may explain the limited success of a number of recent reforms. Thus, while countries may share similar problems in terms of improving healthcare performance, adopting a ‘copy-and-paste’ approach to healthcare reform is likely to be ineffective

Drugs, sex, money and power: An HPV vaccine case study

In this paper we compare the experiences of seven industrialized countries in considering approval and introduction of the world's first cervical cancer-preventing vaccine. Based on case studies, articles from public agencies, professional journals and newspapers we analyse the public debate about the vaccine, examine positions of stakeholder groups and their influence on the course and outcome of this policy process. The analysis shows that the countries considered here approved the vaccine and established related immunization programs exceptionally quickly even though there still exist many uncertainties as to the vaccine's long-term effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety. Some countries even bypassed established decision-making processes. The voice of special interest groups has been prominent in all countries, drawing on societal values and fears of the public. Even though positions differed among countries, all seven decided to publicly fund the vaccine, illustrating a widespread convergence of interests. It is important that decision-makers adhere to transparent and robust guidelines in making funding decisions in the future to avoid capture by vested interests and potentially negative effects on access and equity.Vaccination Human Papillomavirus Decision making Public health Pharmaceutical policy Public policy

A comparative analysis of health system reform across England and Scotland

This is part of a larger collaborative article called "Health systems and health reform in Europe"