Vertical integration in healthcare: What does literature say about improvements on quality, access, efficiency, and costs containment?

The Portuguese NHS 2024 reform: transformation through vertical integration

Vertical integration models aim for the integration of services from different levels of care (e.g., primary, and secondary care) with the objective of increasing coordination and continuity of care as well as improving efficiency, quality, and access outcomes. This paper provides a view of the Portuguese National Health Service (NHS) healthcare providers' vertical integration, operationalized by the Portuguese NHS Executive Board during 2023 and 2024. This paper also aims to contribute to the discussion regarding the opportunities and constraints posed by public healthcare organizations vertical integration reforms. The Portuguese NHS operationalized the development and generalization of Local Health Units management model throughout the country. The same institutions are now responsible for both the primary care and the hospital care provided by public services in each geographic area, in an integrated manner. This 2024 reform also changed the NHS organic and organizational structures, opening paths to streamline the continuum of care. However, it will be important to ensure adequate monitoring and support, with the participation of healthcare services as well as community structures and other stakeholders, to promote an effective integration of care.

Effects of vertical integration on the healthcare system in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Vertical integration is one possible way to improve the performance of a healthcare system; however, its effects are inconsistent, and there is a lack of evidence from undeveloped nations. This study aims to systematically review the evidence regarding effects of vertical integration on healthcare systems in China. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ProQuest Health & Medicine Collection, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Wanfang databases from April 2009 (initiation of new healthcare reform) to May 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) trials, cohort studies and interrupted time series (ITS) trials. Vertical integration in the included studies must involve both primary health institutions and secondary or tertiary hospitals. After screening 3109 records, we ultimately analysed 47 studies, including 27 CBA trials, 18 RCTs and 2 ITS trials. The narrative synthesis shows that all but three studies indicated that vertical integration improved efficiency (utilization and cost of health services), quality of public health services and medical services, health provider-centred outcomes (knowledge and skill) and patient-centred outcomes (patients' clinical outcomes, behaviour and satisfaction). Despite the heterogeneity of vertical integration interventions across different studies, the meta-analysis reveals that it lowered diastolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD) -8.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.18 to -1.65) and systolic blood pressure (MD-5.83, 95% CI -9.25 to -2.40) among hypertension patients, and it lowered HbA1c levels (MD -1.95, 95% CI -2.69 to -1.21), fasting blood glucose levels (MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.50) and 2-hour postprandial blood glucose levels (MD -1.78, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.89). The treatment compliance behaviour was improved for hypertension participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.13) and for diabetes patients (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08-1.61). Vertical integration in China can improve efficiency, quality of care, health provider-centred outcomes and patient-centred outcomes, but high-quality original studies are highly needed.

Evidence on bringing specialised care to the primary level-effects on the Quadruple Aim and cost-effectiveness: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To achieve the Quadruple Aim of improving population health, enhancing the patient experience of care, reducing costs and improving professional satisfaction requires reorganisation of health care. One way to accomplish this aim is by integrating healthcare services on different levels. This systematic review aims to determine whether it is cost-effective to bring a hospital specialist into primary care from the perspectives of commissioners, patients and professionals.

METHODS

The review follows the PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO (CINAHL and Academic Search Ultimate) for the period of 1992-2022. In total, 4254 articles were found, and 21 original articles that reported on both quality and costs, were included. The JBI and ROBINS-I tools were used for quality appraisal. In data synthesis, vote counting and effect direction plots were used together with a sign test. The strength of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness was only measured in two studies, and it remains unclear. Costs and cost drivers for commissioners were lower in the intervention in 52% of the studies; this proportion rose to 67% of the studies when cost for patients was also considered, while health outcomes, patient experience and professional satisfaction mostly improved but at least remained the same. Costs for the patient, where measured, were mainly lower in the intervention group. Professional satisfaction was reported in 48% of the studies; in 80% it was higher in the intervention group. In 24% of the studies, higher monetary costs were reported for commissioners, whereas the clinical outcomes, patient experience and costs for the patient mainly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of the hospital specialist in primary care model remains inconclusive. Only a few studies have comprehensively calculated costs, evaluating cost drivers. However, it seems that when the service is well organised and the population is large enough, the concept can be profitable for the commissioner also. From the patient's perspective, the model is superior and could even promote equity through improved access. Professional satisfaction is mostly higher compared to the traditional model. The certainty of evidence is very low for cost and low for quality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022325232, 12.4.2022.