Search results

Three types of payment methods have been introduced across European countries in attempts to encourage better, more integrated care of persons with multimorbidity: pay-for-performance; pay-for-coordination; and an all-inclusive payment method. We examine whether there are differences in the way these payment methods affect health and healthcare use in persons with multimorbidity.

Using individual-level survey data from twenty European countries, we examine unadjusted differences in average outcomes for the years 2011–2015 by whether countries adopted new payment methods for integrated care. We then test for a differential effect for multimorbid persons using linear, individual random effects regressions, including country and time fixed effects and clustering standard errors at the country level.

We find little effect of varying payment methods on key outcomes for multimorbid individuals despite the theoretical predictions and the rhetoric in many policy documents.

Policymakers should bear in mind that the success of the payment method relies on the specific design of the incentives and their implementation. New effective models of care and how to incentivise these for multimorbid patients is an ongoing research priority.

This paper is the first to study the effects of payments for integration on the dimensions and populations these schemes intend to affect; health and healthcare use at the individual level for multimorbid individuals.

The use of pay for performance (P4P) as an instrument to incentivise quality improvements in health care is at a crossroads in high-income countries but has remained a commonly used tool in low- and middle-income countries. The authors aimed to take stock of the evidence on effectiveness and design from across income settings to reveal insights for the future design of performance payment across income contexts.

The authors identified Cochrane literature reviews of the use of P4P in health care in any income setting, tracked the development in the quantity and quality of evidence over time, and compared the incentive design features used across high-income countries compared to low- and middle-income countries.

The quantity and quality of the evidence base have grown over time but can still be improved. Scheme design varies across income settings, and although some design choices may reflect differences in context, the authors find that incentive designers in both income settings can learn from practices used in the other setting.

The research and literature on P4P in high-, low- and middle-income countries largely operate in silos. By taking stock of the evidence on P4P from across income settings, the authors are able to draw out key insights between these settings, which remain underexplored in the literature.

In this chapter, we focus on the major reforms intended to ensure the sustainability of health care in Denmark between 2000 and 2020 and the evidence for the effectiveness of these reforms. We take a broad definition of sustainability and include reforms that aimed to improve the productivity of the health care sector both in terms of increasing activity for the same set of inputs and in terms of improving the quality of care. A characterisation of the Danish health care system as having gone through evolution rather than revolution (Pedersen, Christiansen, & Bech, 2005) is, with one exception, still true today, and reforms have been relatively few. As we demonstrate there is a relative lack of formal evaluations of these reforms.

In the first decade of the period, the majority of new policy measures aimed to increase the quantity of care provided by the health care sector. With the introduction of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) to measure hospital activity, a wave of reforms created a stronger link between activity and hospital reimbursement, and introduced additional incentives for increasing activity, alongside requirements for increased technical efficiency. A centralisation reform in 2007 reduced the number of administrative units and saw the beginning of a development that would also lead to fewer hospital units. Procurements of medicines were professionalised, and a national council was established to consider the use of expensive hospital medicine.

In the second-half of the period, policy makers began questioning whether increased activity was always for the better, and slowly began experimenting with initiatives that would shift the focus to the quality and appropriateness of care. As in many other countries, this move occurred in the light of a realisation of a shift in the demographic structure of the country and the change this was expected to create for the future demand for health care.

Although some empirical evidence exists, it is striking that few of the changes to the health care sector has been subject to formal academic evaluation – especially when considering the availability of high quality nationwide micro data. We point to a number of important lessons that could be drawn from the Danish experiences.

However, the greatest potential for research into the sustainability of health care in the Danish setting is probably still to be realised by taking advantage of the possibilities of linking micro data on individuals' health care utilisation, schooling outcomes and labour supply, with the possibility of following individuals across decades. For example, Danish micro data make it possible to follow newborns in 1990 until they reach adulthood and simultaneously follow their parents from adulthood until they reach 60 years of age where the prevalence of chronic diseases begins to show.