Determining the “Health Benefit Basket” of the Statutory Health Insurance scheme in Germany: Methodologies and criteria

The issue of defining health benefit catalogues has recently gained new importance in Germany as a result of the creation of the new Institute for Quality and Efficiency. The Institute was designed to support the Federal Joint Committee conducting effectiveness studies for benefit coverage decisions. The Committee and the contractual partners (sickness funds and providers) define the benefit catalogues for the Statutory Health Insurance in the framework of Social Code Book V, Germany’s most relevant health care scheme. Unlike other countries, the German federal government limits its regulatory role to defining procedures that determine the scope of Statutory Health Insurance services. The explicitness of the benefit catalogues varies greatly between different sectors. While benefits in outpatient care are rather explicitly defined, benefit definitions for inpatient care are vague. It is argued that the establishment of the new Institute and the development of the DRG system are initial steps towards a more effective and explicit benefit catalogue

The contribution of health systems research to HSR : Time to know what we are talking about, and why it is important for evidence-based policy-making

First published by BioMed Central Busse, Reinhard : The contribution of health systems research to HSR : time to know what we are talking about, and why it is important for evidence-based policy-making : From Health Services Research: Evidence-based practice London, UK. 1-3 July 2014. - In: BMC Health Services Research. - ISSN 1472-6963 (online). - 14 (2014), suppl. 2, O25. - doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-S2-O25

Financing health care in high-income countries

The main lesson from the experience of high-income countries with health care financing is a simple one: financing reforms should support the ultimate goal of universal coverage. Most high-income countries started with voluntary health insurance systems, which were then gradually extended to compulsory social insurance for certain groups and finally reached universal coverage, either as nationwide social health insurance schemes or as tax-financed national health services. The risk pooling and prepayment functions are essential. Moreover, the revenue collection mechanisms, whether as general tax revenues or payroll taxes, are secondary to the basic object of providing financial protection through effective risk pooling mechanisms. The experience of high-income countries indicates that private health insurance, medical savings accounts, and other forms of private resource collection are supplementary methods for increasing universal coverage.

The use of cost accounting methodologies to determine prices in German health care

In many sectors of the health care system, prices at which providers are reimbursed by payers are not determined by the market mechanism, but rather by a defined administrative process. Depending on the sector, prices are set politically and are negotiated between different actors or are calculated according to a defined procedure, considering cost data from a sample of providers. The selected approach for price setting determines decisively, to which extent prices for certain services reflect the actual costs incurred for these services. A lack of reflection of actual costs can lead to unintended incentives for providers and therefore have implications on the allocative efficiency. Our analysis shows that in Germanys inpatient and outpatient sector, cost data is increasingly considered for price setting while in other sectors such as long-term care and rehabilitation, the use of cost data is still very limited. However, DRG-cost-weights in the inpatient sector insufficiently reflect actual costs incurred. Thus, decision makers in the German health care system rely more on cost data for price setting and improving the accuracy of cost calculations in order to increase allocative efficiency. -- Die Preisbildung für die Erstattung von Leistungserbringern erfolgt in vielen Sektoren des Gesundheitswesens nicht durch den Marktmechanismus, sondern durch einen administrativ definierten Prozess. Je nach Sektor werden politische Preise vorgegeben, unter den Akteuren verhandelt oder nach einem festgelegten Verfahren, unter Berücksichtigung von Kostendaten aus einer Stichprobe von Leistungserbringern, berechnet. Das gewählte Verfahren der Preisbildung determiniert in entscheidendem Maße, inwieweit die Preise für die erbrachten Leistungen die realen Kosten der Leistungserbringer für diese abbilden. Eine mangelnde Reflektion der Kosten in den Preisen kann zu Fehlanreizen für die Leistungserbringer und mithin zu einer Fehlallokation von Ressourcen führen. Im Rahmen dieser Untersuchung zeigt sich, dass in Deutschland im stationären und ambulanten Bereich zunehmend detaillierte Kostendaten für die Preisberechnung herangezogen werden, während dies in anderen Sektoren wie Pflege und Rehabilitation bislang nur sehr bedingt erfolgt. Es zeigt sich jedoch, dass auch im stationären Sektor die DRG-Relativgewichte bislang nur unzureichend die Kosten für die entsprechenden Leistungen abbilden. Insgesamt muss in Deutschland für die Preisbildung im Gesundheitswesen mehr auf Kosteninformationen für die Preisberechnung zurückgegriffen und die Verursachungsgerechtigkeit der Kostenkalkulationen verbessert werden, um die Allokationseffizienz zu erhöhen.

Managing pharmaceutical regulation in Germany: Overview and economic assessment

Rising costs in pharmaceutical expenditure have become a major concern for policy makers in Germany over the last years. Therefore the pharmaceutical market in Germany has been increasingly targeted by different kinds of regulations, focussing both on the supply and the demand side, using price, volume and spending controls. Specific regulations include price reductions, reference pricing, pharmacy rebate for sickness funds, increasing co-payments, an aut-idem substitution, parallel imports, negative list, guidelines, and finally spending caps for pharmaceutical expenditure per physicians association. Although it is difficult to attribute certain effects to single measures, some measures like reference pricing and physician spending caps are more effective and long-lasting than others. Although highly disputed among physicians, the spending caps applied between 1993 and 2001 have limited pharmaceutical expenditure for an entire decade. However, while some measures do effectively control expenditures, their effect on allocative efficiency may be negative. -- Steigende Ausgaben für Arzneimittel stellen zunehmend ein Problem für Entscheidungsträger in Politik und Selbstverwaltung dar. Daher war der Arzneimittelmarkt in den letzten Jahren Ziel verschiedener Regulierungsformen, die sowohl auf der Angebotsseite als auch auf der Nachfrageseite ansetzen und sowohl Instrumente zur Preis, Mengen als auch Ausgabenregulierung nutzen. Sie umfassen dabei insbesondere Preisrabatte, Festbeträge, Zuzahlungen, Aut-idem substitution, Parallelimporte, Negativlisten, Leitlinien and Arzneimittelbudgets. Obwohl es schwierig ist, bestimmte Wirkungen monokausal auf einzelne Maßnahmen zu zurückzuführen, kann festgestellt werden, dass Arzneimittelbudgets und Festpreise nachhaltiger und effektiver als andere Regulierungsformen sind. Obwohl Arzneimittelbudgets bei niedergelassenen Ärzten sehr umstritten sind, waren sie hauptverantwortlich für die Begrenzung der Arzneimittelausgaben zwischen 1993 und 2001. Daneben existieren einige Regulierungsformen die zwar die Arzneimittel-ausgaben wirksam senken, deren allokative Effizienz jedoch insgesamt eher negativ ist.

Cost-sharing in the German health care system

In Germany, cost-sharing for health care has been used as a financing mechanism since 1923. In this article, the historical development of user charges in Germany since the 1980s is presented in more detail by type of private expenditure, including direct payments, cost-sharing measures, and voluntary health insurance. This is followed by a mapping of current cost-sharing measures including a discussion of protection mechanisms and responsibility for decision-making on cost-sharing measures and a summary of national policy debates. In the final section, the results of a systematic review of the literature on the impact of cost-sharing on equity, efficiency and health outcomes in Germany are presented. -- Die Selbstbeteiligung des Patienten an den Gesundheitsversorgungskosten hat in Deutschland eine lange Tradition und geht auf das Jahr 1923 zurück. In dieser Arbeit wird die historische Entwicklung und Bedeutung von Kostenselbstbeteiligung im Gesundheitswesen seit 1980 detailliert nach Art der Gesundheitsausgaben dargestellt. Dies beinhaltet direkte Zahlungen, Kostenbeteiligung, und private Krankenversicherung. Darauf folgt eine Darstellung der derzeitigen Regelungen zur Selbstbeteiligung mit Berücksichtigung der verschiedenen Mechanismen zum Schutz vor katastrophalen Gesundheitsausgaben und der Zuständigkeit für politische und administrative Entscheidungsfindungen zur Selbstbeteiligung. Im letzten Abschnitt werden die Ergebnisse einer systematischen Literatursuche zu den Auswirkungen von Kostenbeteiligungen auf Effizienz, Gerechtigkeit und Gesundheitsstatus in Deutschland dargestellt.

Evidence-based indications for the planning of PET or PET/CT capacities are needed

Purpose To identify evidence-based indications for PET/PET–CT scans in support of facilities planning and to describe a pilot project in which this information was applied for an investment decision in an Austrian region. The study updates a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report (2015) on oncological indications, extending it to neurological indications and inflammatory disorders. Methods A systematic literature search to identify HTA reports, evidence-based guidelines, and systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MA) was performed, supplemented by a manual search for professional society recommendations and explicit “not-to-do’s”. A needs-assessment was conducted in the context of the pilot study on investing in an additional PET–CT scanner in the Austrian region of Carinthia. Results Overall recommendations for indications as well as non-recommendations for the three areas (oncology, neurology, and inflammatory disorders) were compiled from the 2015 PET–HTA report and expanded for a final total of ten HTA, comprising 234 (positive and negative) recommendations from professional societies and databases, and supplemented by findings from 23 SR/MA. For the investment decision pilot study in Carinthia, 1762 PET scans were analyzed; 77.8% were assigned to the category “recommended evidence-based indications” (54.7%), “not recommended” (1.8%) or “contradictory recommendations” (21.3%). The remaining could not be assigned to any of the three categories. Conclusions The piloting of PET capacity planning using evidence-based information is a first of its kind in the published literature. On one hand, the high number of PET scans that could not be ascribed to any of the categories identified limits to the instructive power of the study to use evidence-based indication lists as the basis for a needs-assessment investment planning. On the other hand, this study reveals how there is a need to improve indication coding for enhanced capacity planning of medical services. Overall recommendations identified can serve as needs-based and evidence-based decision support for PET/PET–CT service provision

Defining benefit catalogues and entitlements to health care in Germany: Decision makers, decision criteria and taxonomy of catalogues

This paper studies the politico-economic reasons for the refusal of a proposed compulsory flood insurance scheme in Germany. It provides the rationale for such scheme and outlines the basic features of a market-orientated design. The main reasons for the political down-turn of this proposal were the (mis)perceived costs of a state guarantee, legal objections against a compulsory insurance, distributional conflicts between the federal government and the German states (Länder) on the implied administrative costs and the well-known samariter dilemma of ad-hoc disaster relief. The focus on pure market solutions proved to be an ineffective strategy for policy advice in this field. -- Während die Rahmenbedingungen für das deutsche Gesundheitssystem vom Gesetzgeber vorgegeben werden, obliegt die Bestimmung einzelner Leistungen bzw. Leistungsinhalte den Entscheidungsträgern der Selbstverwaltung. Dabei variiert die Genauigkeit der Leistungsdefinition zwischen verschiedenen Sektoren und Ausgabenträgern. Während die Leistungen einiger Ausgabenträger nur implizit definiert sind, ist der Leistungsumfang anderer Ausgabenträger bereits explizit als Leistungskatalog formuliert. Dabei orientiert sich die Mehrheit der Ausgabenträger an dem Leistungsumfang der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung (GKV) und überträgt diesen in den eigenen Bereich. Im Rahmen der GKV, die ca. 88% der Bevölkerung versichert und 56,9% der Gesundheitsausgaben trägt, bestimmen verschiedene Kataloge zusammen mit den Richtlinien des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses den Leistungsumfang. Die Leistungen, der Aufbau und der Inhalt der Leistungskataloge, die an der Definition der Kataloge beteiligten Akteure, sowie die Entscheidungskriterien für die Aufnahme neuer Leistungen in die Leistungskataloge der Sozialversicherungen werden in diesem Zusammenhang ausführlich dargestellt und analysiert.

Considering equity in health technology assessment: an exploratory analysis of agency practices

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.Objectives: Equity is one of the founding principles in most healthcare systems. Financial constraints entail an increased risk of exacerbating inequities and a greater need for evidence-based decisions. It is, therefore, both important and timely to enquire how equity can be addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) practice. We aimed to explore related practices from a broad range of HTA agencies, identify exemplary approaches and common concerns, and offer insights for future considerations. Methods: HTA agencies for which both methodological guides and HTA reports were publicly available were selected from an initial comprehensive pool. Information was extracted on issues ranging from a general commitment to fairness to specific measures targeting both methodological and process-related elements. Results: Methodological documents and ninety-eight reports from nineteen agencies were analyzed. Our findings indicate that equity was not a standard consideration in HTA report production. The nature of specific approaches and the amount of resources invested into including an equity perspective varied considerably. Specific measures (e.g., appropriate information sources, analytical tools, and schemes) were mentioned by almost half of the agencies analyzed. Albeit sporadic, both horizontal and vertical equity considerations were identified in included HTA reports. Conclusions: While varying legal contexts and institutional principles can lead to different interpretations of equity at the decision point, a combination of methodological and process-related practices could contribute to more equity-sensitive evaluations, especially in conjunction with enhanced dissemination of existing methodological tools. Networking initiatives on behalf of existing collaborating platforms could play an important role in this direction

How health technology assessment agencies address the issue of unpublished data

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.Objectives: Reporting bias potentially threatens the validity of results in health technology assessment (HTA) reports. Our study aimed to explore policies and practices of HTA agencies regarding strategies to include previously unpublished data in their assessments, focusing on requests to industry for unpublished data. Methods: We included international HTA agencies with publicly available methods papers as well as HTA reports. From the methods papers and recent reports we extracted information on requests to industry and on searches in trial registries, regulatory authority Web sites and for conference abstracts. Results: Eighteen HTA agencies and seventy-three reports were included. Agencies’ methods papers showed variability regarding requests to industry (requests are routinely carried out in seven cases, not mentioned in six, at the discretion of HTA authors in three, and based on manufacturer applications in two), which were reflected in the reports investigated. As reporting of requests was limited, it often remained unclear whether unpublished data had been received. Searches in trial registries, at regulatory authorities or for conference abstracts are described as a routine or optional part of the search strategy in the methods papers of 9, 11, and 8 included agencies, respectively. A total of 52 percent, 39 percent, and 16 percent of reports described searches in trial registries, at regulatory agencies, and hand searching of conference proceedings. Conclusion: International HTA agencies currently differ considerably in their efforts to address the issue of unpublished data. Requests to industry may constitute one strategy to access and include unpublished data, while agencies can learn from each other concerning successful practice