New Provider Models for Sweden and Spain: Public, Private or Non-profit? Comment on “Governance, Government, and the Search for New Provider Models”

Sweden and Spain experiment with different provider models to reform healthcare provision. Both models have in common that they extend the role of the for-profit sector in healthcare. As the analysis of Saltman and Duran demonstrates, privatisation is an ambiguous and contested strategy that is used for quite different purposes. In our comment, we emphasize that their analysis leaves questions open on the consequences of privatisation for the performance of healthcare and the role of the public sector in healthcare provision. Furthermore, we briefly address the absence of the option of healthcare provision by not-for-profit providers in the privatisation strategy of Sweden and Spai

For-Profit Hospitals Out of Business? Financial Sustainability During the COVID-19 Epidemic Emergency Response

This perspective argues that for-profit hospitals will be heavily affected by epidemic crises, including the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Policy-makers should be aware that for-profit hospitals in particular are likely to face financial distress. The suspension of all non-urgent elective surgery and the relegation of market-based mechanisms that determines the allocation and compensation of care puts the financial state of these hospitals at serious risk. We identify three organisational factors that determine which hospitals might be most affected (ie, care-portfolio, size and whether it is private equity [PE]-owned). In addition, we analyse contextual factors that could explain the impact of financial distress among for-profit hospitals on the wider healthcare system

For-profit hospitals have thrived because of generous public reimbursement schemes, not greater efficiency: a multi-country case study

For-profit hospitals’ market share has increased in many nations over recent decades. Previous studies suggest that their growth is not attributable to superior performance on access, quality of care, or efficiency. We analyzed other factors that we hypothesized may contribute to the increasing role of for-profit hospitals. We studied the historical development of the for-profit hospital sector across 4 nations with contrasting trends in for-profit hospital market share: the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. We focused on 3 factors that we believed might help explain why the role of for-profits grew in some nations but not in others: (1) the treatment of for-profits by public reimbursement plans, (2) physicians’ financial interests, and (3) the effect of the political environment. We conclude that access to subsidies and reimbursement under favorable terms from public health care payors is an important factor in the rise of for-profit hospitals. Arrangements that aligned financial incentives of physicians with the interests of for-profit hospitals were important in stimulating for-profit growth in an earlier era, but they play little role at present. Remarkably, the environment for for-profit ownership seems to have been largely immune to political shifts

Independent Treatment Centres Are Not a Guarantee for High Quality and Low Healthcare Prices in The Netherlands – A Study of 5 Elective Surgeries

Background: Independent treatment centres (ITCs) are a growing phenomenon in many healthcare systems. Focus factory theory predicts that ITCs provide high quality healthcare with low prices, through specialisation, high-volume and routine. This study examines if ITC care outperforms general hospital (GH) care within a regulated competition system in the Netherlands, by focusing on differences in healthcare quality and price. Methods: The cross-sectional study combined publicly available quality data, list prices and insurer contracts for 2017. Clinical outcomes of 5 elective surgeries (total hip and knee replacement, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), cataract and carpal tunnel surgeries) were compared using zero-or-one inflated beta-regressions, corrected for underlying structural factors (ie, volume of care, process and structure indicators, and chain affiliation). Furthermore, price differences between ITCs and GHs were examined using ordinary least squares regressions. Lastly, we analysed quality of care in relation to the number of insurance contracts of the 4 largest Dutch insurance companies using ordered logistic regressions. Results: Quality differences between ITCs and GHs were found to be inconsistent across procedures. No facility type performed better overall. There were no differences exhibited in the list prices between ITCs and GHs. No consistent relationship was found between the underlying factors and quality or price, in different procedures and time. We found no indication for selective contracting based on quality within the ITC sector.Conclusions: This study found no evidence that ITCs outperform GHs on quality or price. This evidence does not support the focus factory theory. The substantial practice variation in quality of care may justify more evidence-based contracting within the market for elective surgery

The Relationship Between the Scope of Essential Health Benefits and Statutory Financing: An International Comparison Across Eight European Countries

Background: Both rising healthcare costs and the global financial crisis have fueled a search for policy tools in order to avoid unsustainable future financing of essential health benefits. The scope of essential health benefits (the range of services covered) and depth of coverage (the proportion of costs of the covered benefits that is covered publicly) are corresponding variables in determining the benefits package. We hypothesized that a more comprehensive health benefit package may increase user costsharing charges. Methods: We conducted a desktop research study to assess the interrelationship between the scope of covered health benefits and the height of statutory spending in a sample of 8 European countries: Belgium, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. We conducted a targeted literature search to identify characteristics of the healthcare systems in our sample of countries. We analyzed similarities and differences based on the dimensions of publicly financed healthcare as published by the European Observatory on Health Care Systems. Results: We found that the scope of services is comparable and comprehensive across our sample, with only marginal differences. Cost-sharing arrangements show the most variation. In general, we found no direct interrelationship in this sample between the ranges of services covered in the health benefits package and the height of public spending on healthcare. With regard to specific services (dental care, physical therapy), we found indications of an association between coverage of services and cost-sharing arrangements. Strong variations in the volume and price of healthcare services between the 8 countries were found for services with large practice variations. Conclusion: Although reducing the scope of the benefit package as well as increasing user charges may contribute to the financial sustainability of healthcare, variations in the volume and price of care seem to have a much larger impact on financial sustainability. Policy-makers should focus on a variety of measures within an integrated approach. There is no silver bullet for addressing the sustainability of healthcare

Medicalization Defined in Empirical Contexts – A Scoping Review

Background: Medicalization has been a topic of discussion and research for over four decades. It is a known concept to researchers from a broad range of disciplines. Medicalization appears to be a concept that speaks to all, suggesting a shared understanding of what it constitutes. However, conceptually, the definition of medicalization has evolved over time. It is unknown how the concept is applied in empirical research, therefore following research question was answered: How is medicalization defined in empirical research and how do the definitions differ from each other? Methods: We performed a scoping review on the empirical research on medicalization. The 5 steps of a scoping review were followed: (1) Identifying the research question; (2) Identifying relevant studies; (3) Inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) Charting the data; and (5) Collating, summarizing and reporting the results. The screening of 3027 papers resulted in the inclusion of 50 empirical studies in the review.Results: The application of the concept of medicalization within empirical studies proved quite diverse. The used conceptual definitions could be divided into 10 categories, which differed from each other subtly though importantly. The ten categories could be placed in a framework, containing two axes. The one axe represents a continuum from value neutral definitions to value laden definitions. The other axe represents a continuum from a micro to a macro perspective on medicalization. Conclusion: This review shows that empirical research on medicalization is quite heterogeneous in its definition of the concept. This reveals the richness and complexity of medicalization, once more, but also hinders the comparability of studies. Future empirical research should pay more attention to the choice made with regard to the definition of medialization and its applicability to the context of the study

Medicalisation and Overdiagnosis: What Society Does to Medicine

The concept of overdiagnosis is a dominant topic in medical literature and discussions. In research that targets overdiagnosis, medicalisation is often presented as the societal and individual burden of unnecessary medical expansion. In this way, the focus lies on the influence of medicine on society, neglecting the possible influence of society on medicine. In this perspective, we aim to provide a novel insight into the influence of society and the societal context on medicine, in particularly with regard to medicalisation and overdiagnosi

Relationship between the Ownership Status of Nursing Homes and Their Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Literature Review

Context: Some nursing homes fared better than others to protect themselves against the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Organisational characteristics may mediate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous reviews have suggested for-profit providers provide worse quality of care. Does ownership also matter in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic? Objective: The aim of this literature review is to evaluate the relationship between ownership structure of nursing homes and their performance during the pandemic, measured as COVID-19 cases and deaths. Method: A rapid literature review was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science, following a systematic approach. The search was conducted in October 2020 and updated in December 2020. Articles were selected based on a pre-defined set of PICOT criteria and underwent risk of bias assessment. Findings: Eighteen papers were included in this rapid review. These papers cover a period from March to July 2020. The majority of papers found a significant relationship in the unadjusted statistics between ownership status and effectiveness in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the adjusted figures paint a more nuanced picture. The relationship seems to be mediated by other organisational (e.g., size), process (e.g., staff shortages) and contextual factors (e.g., regional spread of COVID-19) in comparison to ownership directly. Limitations: The majority of the included studies focus on North America, and most studies are of low to medium quality with respect to research methodology. Implications: In the short-term, it will likely be more effective to address identified mediating factors of the relationship between ownership and COVID-19 outcomes; but for the long-term, this review is in keeping with previous literature suggesting policymakers should be cautious about encouraging the ownership of nursing homes by for-profit providers

New Provider Models for Sweden and Spain: Public, Private or Non-profit?; Comment on “Governance, Government, and the Search for New Provider Models”

Sweden and Spain experiment with different provider models to reform healthcare provision. Both models have in common that they extend the role of the for-profit sector in healthcare. As the analysis of Saltman and Duran demonstrates, privatisation is an ambiguous and contested strategy that is used for quite different purposes. In our comment, we emphasize that their analysis leaves questions open on the consequences of privatisation for the performance of healthcare and the role of the public sector in healthcare provision. Furthermore, we briefly address the absence of the option of healthcare provision by not-for-profit providers in the privatisation strategy of Sweden and Spain