Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Financing Systems (financing + system)
Selected AbstractsMonitoring political decision-making and its impact in AustriaHEALTH ECONOMICS, Issue S1 2005Adolf Stepan Abstract The range of services provided by the Austrian health care system has been greatly extended over the last few decades. The accompanying measures for long-term care bring the situation closer to the ideal concept of a ,seamless web' between primary, secondary and tertiary care. Due to the expansion in services it has become increasingly difficult to ensure the balance between the financing and degree of usage of the services. The reiterated political aim has been to achieve balanced financing via legally fixed social health insurance (SHI) contributions and taxation. A steadily expanding part is contributed by the private sector. In the 1980s, measures for SHI expenditure containment were implemented; in 1997 a new hospital financing system based on flat rates was introduced. In order to guarantee hospital financing, the historical financing shares of the SHI for the hospitals were introduced in the form of valorised global budgets. The contradictory incentives arising from the flat rates and global budgets lead hospitals to shift services to the primary and tertiary care sector, causing additional expenditure for SHI. Currently, attempts are being made to secure the financing by increasing the SHI contribution rates and patients' co-payments. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Reflections on and alternatives to WHO's fairness of financial contribution indexHEALTH ECONOMICS, Issue 2 2002*Article first published online: 28 FEB 200, Adam Wagstaff Abstract In its 2000 World Health Report (WHR), the World Health Organization argues that a key dimension of a health system's performance is the fairness of its financing system. This paper provides a critical assessment of the index of fairness of financial contribution (FFC) proposed in the WHR. It shows that the index cannot discriminate between health financing systems that are regressive and those that are progressive, and cannot discriminate between horizontal inequity on the one hand, and progressivity and regressivity on the other. The paper compares the WHO index to an alternative and more illuminating approach developed in the income redistribution literature in the early 1990s and used in the late 1990s to study the fairness of various OECD countries' health financing systems. It ends with an illustrative empirical comparison of the two approaches using data on out-of-pocket payments for health services in Vietnam for two years , 1993 and 1998. This analysis is of some interest in its own right, given the large share of health spending from out-of-pocket payments in Vietnam, and the changes in fees and drug prices over the 1990s. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Caring for Older Americans: The Future of Geriatric MedicineJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue S6 2005American Geriatrics Society Core Writing Group of the Task Force on the Future of Geriatric Medicine In response to the needs and demands of an aging population, geriatric medicine has grown rapidly during the past 3 decades. The discipline has defined its core values as well as the knowledge base and clinical skills needed to improve the health, functioning, and well-being of older persons and to provide appropriate palliative care. Geriatric medicine has developed new models of care, advanced the treatment of common geriatric conditions, and advocated for the health and health care of older persons. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the 21st century, the health care of older persons is at a crossroads. Despite the substantial progress that geriatric medicine has made, much more remains to be done to meet the healthcare needs of our aging population. The clinical, educational, and research approaches of the 20th century are unable to keep pace and require major revisions. Maintaining the status quo will mean falling further and further behind. The healthcare delivery and financing systems need fundamental redesign to improve quality and eliminate waste. The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) Task Force on the Future of Geriatric Medicine has identified five goals aimed at optimizing the health of older persons: ,,To ensure that every older person receives high-quality, patient-centered health care ,,To expand the geriatrics knowledge base ,,To increase the number of healthcare professionals who employ the principles of geriatric medicine in caring for older persons ,,To recruit physicians and other healthcare professionals into careers in geriatric medicine ,,To unite professional and lay groups in the effort to influence public policy to continually improve the health and health care of seniors Geriatric medicine cannot accomplish these goals alone. Accordingly, the Task Force has articulated a set of recommendations primarily aimed at the government, organizations, agencies, foundations, and other partners whose collaboration will be essential in accomplishing these goals. The vision described in this document and the accompanying recommendations are only the broad outline of an agenda for the future. Geriatric medicine, through its professional organizations and its partners, will need to mobilize resources to identify and implement the specific steps that will make the vision a reality. Doing so will require broad participation, consensus building, creativity, and perseverance. The consequences of inaction will be profound. The combination of a burgeoning number of older persons and an inadequately prepared, poorly organized physician workforce is a recipe for expensive, fragmented health care that does not meet the needs of our older population. By virtue of their unique skills and advocacy for the health of older persons, geriatricians can be key leaders of change to achieve the goals of geriatric medicine and optimize the health of our aging population. Nevertheless, the goals of geriatric medicine will be accomplished only if geriatricians and their partners work in a system that is designed to provide high-quality, efficient care and recognizes the value of geriatrics. [source] Commercial Insurance vs Community-based Health Plans: Time for a Policy Option With Clinical Emphasis to Address the Cost SpiralTHE JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH, Issue 2 2005Bruce Amundson MD ABSTRACT: The nation continues its ceaseless struggle with the spiraling cost of health care. Previous efforts (regulation, competition, voluntary action) have included almost every strategy except clinical. Insurers have largely failed in their cost-containment efforts. There is a strong emerging body of literature that demonstrates the relationship between various clinical strategies and reductions in utilization and costs. This article describes the organization of health services, including integration of delivery and financing systems, at the community level as a model that effectively addresses the critical structural flaws that have frustrated control of costs. Community-based health plans (CHPs) have been developed and have demonstrated viability. The key elements of CHPs are a legal organizational structure, a full provider network, advanced care-management systems, and the ability to assume financial risk. Common misconceptions regarding obstacles to CHP development are the complexity of the undertaking, difficulty assuming the insurance function, and insured pools that are too small to be viable. The characteristics of successful CHPs and 2 case studies are described, including the types of advanced care-management systems that have resulted in strong financial performance. The demonstrated ability of CHPs to establish financial viability with small numbers of enrollees challenges the common assumption that there is a fixed relationship between health plan enrollment size and financial performance. Organizing the health system at the community/regional level provides an attractive alternative model in the health-reformdebate. There is an opportunity for clinical systems and state and federal leaders to support the development of community-based integrated delivery and financing system models that, among other advantages, have significant potential to modulate the pernicious cost spiral. [source] | ||||||||||