Single-payer or a multipayer health system: a systematic literature review

Temporal Delays in the Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Comparative Meta-Analysis of Global Literature

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was conducted to compare: 1) time from traumatic brain injury (TBI) to the hospital, and 2) time within the hospital to intervention or surgery, by country-level income, World Health Organization region, and healthcare payment system.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted and followed by a meta-analysis comparing duration of delays (prehospital and intrahospital) in TBI management. Means and standard deviations were pooled using a random effects model and subgroup analysis was performed using R software.

RESULTS

Our analysis comprised 95,554 TBI patients from 45 countries.

BY COUNTRY-LEVEL INCOME

From 23 low- and middle-income countries, a longer mean time from injury to surgery (862.53 minutes, confidence interval [CI]: 107.42-1617.63), prehospital (217.46 minutes, CI: -27.34-462.25), and intrahospital (166.36 minutes, 95% CI: 96.12-236.60) durations were found compared to 22 high-income countries.

BY WHO REGION

African Region had the greatest total (1062.3 minutes, CI: -1072.23-3196.62), prehospital (256.57 minutes [CI: -202.36-715.51]), and intrahospital durations (593.22 minutes, CI: -3546.45-4732.89).

BY HEALTHCARE PAYMENT SYSTEM

Multiple-Payer Health Systems had a greater prehospital duration (132.62 minutes, CI: 54.55-210.68) but greater intrahospital delays were found in Single-Payer Health Systems (309.37 minutes, CI: -21.95-640.69).

CONCLUSION

Our study concludes that TBI patients in low- and middle-income countries within African Region countries face prolonged delays in both prehospital and intrahospital management compared to high-income countries. Additionally, patients within Single-Payer Health System experienced prolonged intrahospital delays. An urgent need to address global disparities in neurotrauma care has been highlighted.

Building alternative payment models in health care

Introduction

Global interest is growing in new value-based models of financing, delivering, and paying for health care services that could produce higher-quality and lower cost outcomes for patients and for society. However, research indicates evidence gaps in knowledge related to alternative payment models (APMs) in early experimentation phases or those contracted between private insurers and their health care provider-partners. The aim of this research was to understand and update the literature related to learning how industry experts design and implement APMs, including specific elements of their models and their choice of stakeholders to be involved in the design and contractual details.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to guide the research focus and to select themes. The sample was selected using snowball sampling to identify subject matter experts (SMEs). Researchers conducted 16 semi-structured interviews with SMEs in the US, the Netherlands, and Germany in September and October 2021. Interviews were transcribed and using Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach to thematic analysis, researchers independently read, reviewed, and coded participants' responses related to APM design and implementation and subsequently reviewed each other's codes and themes for consistency.

Results

Participants represented diverse perspectives of the payer, provider, consulting, and government areas of the health care sector. We found design considerations had five overarching themes: (1) population and scope of care and services, (2) benchmarking, metrics, data, and technology; (3) finance, APM type, risk adjustment, incentives, and influencing provider behavior, (4) provider partnerships and the role of physicians, and (5) leadership and regulatory issues.

Discussion

This study confirmed several of the core components of APM model designs and implementations found in the literature and brought insights on additional aspects not previously emphasized, particularly the role of physicians (especially in leadership) and practice transformation/care processes necessary for providers to thrive under APM models. Importantly, researchers found significant concerns relevant for policymakers about regulations relating to health data sharing, rigid price-setting, and inter-organizational data communication that greatly inhibit the ability to experiment with APMs and those models' abilities to succeed long-term.

COVID-19 Outcomes and Vaccinations in Swedish Solid Organ Transplant Recipients 2020-2021: A Nationwide Multi-Register Comparative Cohort Study

Increased COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality have been reported in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Most studies are underpowered for rigorous matching. We report infections, hospitalization, ICU care, mortality from COVID-19, and pertinent vaccination data in Swedish SOTRs 2020-2021. We conducted a nationwide cohort study, encompassing all Swedish residents. SOTRs were identified with ICD-10 codes and immunosuppressant prescriptions. Comparison cohorts were weighted based on a propensity score built from potential confounders (age, sex, comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, and geography), which achieved a good balance between SOTRs and non-SOTR groups. We included 10,372,033 individuals, including 9073 SOTRs. Of the SARS-CoV-2 infected, 47.3% of SOTRs and 19% of weighted comparator individuals were hospitalized. ICU care was given to 8% of infected SOTRs and 2% of weighted comparators. The case fatality rate was 7.7% in SOTRs, 6.2% in the weighted comparison cohort, and 1.3% in the unweighted comparison cohort. SOTRs had an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 (HR = 1.15 p < 0.001), being hospitalized (HR = 2.89 p < 0.001), receiving ICU care (HR = 4.59 p < 0.001), and dying (HR = 1.42 p < 0.001). SOTRs had much higher morbidity and mortality than the general population during 2020-2021. Also compared with weighted comparators, SOTRs had an increased risk of contracting COVID-19, being hospitalized, receiving ICU care, and dying. In Sweden, SOTRs were vaccinated earlier than weighted comparators. Lung transplant recipients had the worst outcomes. Excess mortality among SOTRs was concentrated in the second half of 2021.

Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies for women in the general population

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To support the strategy, the WHO published updated cervical screening guidelines in 2021. To inform this update, we used an established modeling platform, Policy1-Cervix, to evaluate the impact of seven primary screening scenarios across 78 low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) for the general population of women. Assuming 70% coverage, we found that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening approaches were the most effective and cost-effective, reducing cervical cancer age-standardized mortality rates by 63-67% when offered every 5 years. Strategies involving triaging women before treatment (with 16/18 genotyping, cytology, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or colposcopy) had close-to-similar effectiveness to HPV screening without triage and fewer pre-cancer treatments. Screening with VIA or cytology every 3 years was less effective and less cost-effective than HPV screening every 5 years. Furthermore, VIA generated more than double the number of pre-cancer treatments compared to HPV. In conclusion, primary HPV screening is the most effective, cost-effective and efficient cervical screening option in LMICs. These findings have directly informed WHO's updated cervical screening guidelines for the general population of women, which recommend primary HPV screening in a screen-and-treat or screen-triage-and-treat approach, starting from age 30 years with screening every 5 years or 10 years.

Quality of care in the context of universal health coverage: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Universal health coverage (UHC) is an emerging priority of health systems worldwide and central to Sustainable Development Goal 3 (target 3.8). Critical to the achievement of UHC, is quality of care. However, current evidence suggests that quality of care is suboptimal, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The primary objective of this scoping review was to summarize the existing conceptual and empirical literature on quality of care within the context of UHC and identify knowledge gaps.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and further elaborated by Levac et al. and applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL-Plus, PAIS Index, ProQuest and PsycINFO for reviews published between 1 January 1995 and 27 September 2021. Reviews were eligible for inclusion if the article had a central focus on UHC and discussed quality of care. We did not apply any country-based restrictions. All screening, data extraction and analyses were completed by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Of the 4128 database results, we included 45 studies that met the eligibility criteria, spanning multiple geographic regions. We synthesized and analysed our findings according to Kruk et al.'s conceptual framework for high-quality systems, including foundations, processes of care and quality impacts. Discussions of governance in relation to quality of care were discussed in a high number of studies. Studies that explored the efficiency of health systems and services were also highly represented in the included reviews. In contrast, we found that limited information was reported on health outcomes in relation to quality of care within the context of UHC. In addition, there was a global lack of evidence on measures of quality of care related to UHC, particularly country-specific measures and measures related to equity.

CONCLUSION

There is growing evidence on the relationship between quality of care and UHC, especially related to the governance and efficiency of healthcare services and systems. However, several knowledge gaps remain, particularly related to monitoring and evaluation, including of equity. Further research, evaluation and monitoring frameworks are required to strengthen the existing evidence base to improve UHC.

Socioeconomic Status and Kawasaki Disease Outcomes in a Single-Payer Health Care System

Background

For patients with Kawasaki disease (KD), lower socioeconomic status (SES) may adversely affect the timeliness of presentation and initiation of intravenous immune globulin, and coronary artery outcomes. Multipayer systems have been shown to affect health care equity and access to health care negatively. We sought to determine the association of SES with KD outcomes in a single-payer health care system.

Methods

Patients with KD presenting from 2007 to 2017 at a single institution were included. SES data were obtained by matching patient postal code district with data from the 2016 Census Canada.

Results

SES data were linked for 1018 patients. The proportion of households living below the after-tax low-income cutoff in the patient's postal code district was 13% for not treated, 13% for delayed intravenous immune globulin treatment, and 12% for prompt treatment (P = 0.58). Likewise, the average median annual household income was unrelated to delayed or no treatment. The percentage >15 years of age with advanced education differed between groups at 33%, 29%, and 31% for delayed treatment, prompt treatment, and missed groups, respectively (P = 0.004). SES variables were not significantly different for those with vs without coronary artery aneurysms (max Z-score: >2.5), including the proportion of households living below low-income cutoff (12% vs 13%; P = 0.37), average median annual household income (CAD$81,220 vs $82,055; P = 0.78), and proportion with a university degree (33% vs 31%; P = 0.49), even after adjusting for sex, age, year, and KD type.

Conclusions

Timeliness of treatment for KD and coronary artery outcomes were not associated with SES variables within a single-payer health care system.

Economic Evaluation of Health Behavior Interventions to Prevent and Manage Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Asia: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Health behavior interventions implemented in Asian countries often lack economic evaluations that effectively address the problems of type 2 diabetes mellitus. This review systematically assessed the existing literature on economic evaluation of health behavior interventions to prevent and manage type 2 diabetes mellitus for people living in Asian countries. Eligible studies were identified through a search of six bibliographic databases, namely, PubMed, Scopus, Public Health Database by ProQuest, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled trials of health behavior interventions and studies published in the English language from January 2000 to May 2022 were included in the review. The search yielded 3867 records, of which 11 studies were included in the review. All included studies concluded that health behavior interventions were cost-effective. Eight of these studies undertook an evaluation from a health system perspective, two studies used both societal and health system perspectives, and one study utilized a societal and multi-payer perspective. This review identified the time horizon, direct and indirect medical costs, and discount rates as the most important considerations in determining cost effectiveness. These findings have implications in extending health behavior interventions to prevent and manage type 2 diabetes mellitus in low-resource settings, and are likely to yield the most promising outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Causes, impacts and possible mitigation of non-attendance of appointments within the National Health Service: a literature review

PURPOSE

Missed appointments within the National Health Service (NHS) are a drain on resources, associated with not only considerable time and cost implications, but also sub-optimal health outcomes. This literature review aims to explore non-attendance within the NHS in relation to causes, impacts and possible mitigation of negative effects of missed appointments.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus and PubMed were searched with a date range of 2016-2021. Databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published in English addressing non-attendance of adults within the NHS. Studies were excluded if they were theoretical papers, dissertations or research concerning patients aged under 18. A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis.

FINDINGS

The results indicate a significant association of non-attendance and poor health outcomes. Patients from a lower socioeconomic status, adults aged over 85 and those with multiple co-morbidities are more likely to miss appointments. The most commonly reported patient-centred reasons for failing to attend were forgetfulness, transportation difficulties, and family commitments. Practice-specific reasons were cited as inefficiencies of the appointment booking system, failure of traditional reminders and inconvenient timings. Interventions included text reminder services, the inclusion of costs within reminders and enhanced patient involvement with the booking process.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Non-attendance is complex, and to secure maximum attendance, targeted interventions are required by healthcare facilities to ensure patient needs are met. The adaption of scheduling systems and healthcare services can assist in reducing DNA rates.

Integrated Payment, Fragmented Realities? A Discourse Analysis of Integrated Payment in the Netherlands

The current models used for paying for health and social care are considered a major barrier to integrated care. Despite the implementation of integrated payment schemes proving difficult, such initiatives are still widely pursued. In the Netherlands, this development has led to a payment architecture combining traditional and integrated payment models. To gain insight into the justification for and future viability of integrated payment, this paper's purpose is to explain the current duality by identifying discourses on integrated payment models, determining which discourses predominate, and how they have changed over time and differ among key stakeholders in healthcare. The discourse analysis revealed four discourses, each with its own underlying assumptions and values regarding integrated payment. First, the Quality-of-Care discourse sees integrated payment as instrumental in improving care. Second, the Affordability discourse emphasizes how integrated payment can contribute to the financial sustainability of the healthcare system. Third, the Bureaucratization discourse highlights the administrative burden associated with integrated payment models. Fourth, the Strategic discourse stresses micropolitical and professional issues that come into play when implementing such models. The future viability of integrated payment depends on how issues reflected in the Bureaucratization and Strategic discourses are addressed without losing sight of quality-of-care and affordability, two aspects attracting significant public interest in The Netherlands.

Defining Pooled' Place-Based' Budgets for Health and Social Care: A Scoping Review

Introduction

Current descriptions of pooled budgets in the literature pose challenges to good quality evaluation of their contribution to integrated care. Addressing this gap is increasingly important given the shift from early models of integrated care targeting segments of the population, to more recent approaches that aim to target 'places', broader geographically defined populations. This review draws on the current international evidence to describe practical examples of pooled health and social care budgets, highlighting specific place-based approaches.

Methods

We initially conducted a scoping review, a systematic database search ('Medline', 'Embase', 'Econ Lit' and 'Google Scholar') complemented by further snowballing for academic and 'grey literature' publications (1995 - 2020). Results were analysed thematically according to budget characteristics and macro-environment, with additional specific case studies.

Results

Thirty-six primary studies were included, describing ten broad models of pooled budgets across seven countries. Most budgets targeted specific sub-populations rather than an entire geographically defined population. Specific budget structures varied and were generally under-described. The closest place-based models were for small populations and implemented in a national health system, or insurance-based with natural geographical boundaries.

Conclusion

Despite their increasing relevance in the current political debate, pooled place-based budgets are still at an early stage of implementation and research. Adequate description is required for future meta-analysis of effectiveness on outcomes.

The impact of payer status on hospital admissions: evidence from an academic medical center

Background

There are plenty of studies investigating the disparity of payer status in accessing to care. However, most studies are either disease-specific or cohort-specific. Quantifying the disparity from the level of facility through a large controlled study are rare. This study aims to examine how the payer status affects patient hospitalization from the perspective of a facility.

Methods

We extracted all patients with visiting record in a medical center between 5/1/2009-4/30/2014, and then linked the outpatient and inpatient records three year before target admission time to patients. We conduct a retrospective observational study using a conditional logistic regression methodology. To control the illness of patients with different diseases in training the model, we construct a three-dimension variable with data stratification technology. The model is validated on a dataset distinct from the one used for training.

Results

Patients covered by private insurance or uninsured are less likely to be hospitalized than patients insured by government. For uninsured patients, inequity in access to hospitalization is observed. The value of standardized coefficients indicates that government-sponsored insurance has the greatest impact on improving patients’ hospitalization.

Conclusion

Attention is needed on improving the access to care for uninsured patients. Also, basic preventive care services should be enhanced, especially for people insured by government. The findings can serve as a baseline from which to measure the anticipated effect of measures to reduce disparity of payer status in hospitalization.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s12913-021-06886-3).

Health insurance as a state institution: The effect of single-payer insurance on expenditures in OECD countries

A growing literature in comparative political economy and health economics has argued several cost-saving effects of a single-payer healthcare system. Despite this growing evidence, there has been no large-scale empirical examination of whether such an effect exists cross-nationally over time. This paper serves as the first attempt to find and calculate the extent to which healthcare spending is affected by the utilization of a single-payer scheme. I introduce an original dataset for OECD countries that measures when and where systems that qualify as single-payer exist, and employ it to test whether significant differences exist in health expenditures. Results demonstrate a significant difference between single- and multi-payer system expenditures. I estimate the utilization of a single-payer system is associated with decreased expenditure equal to 0.750 percentage-points of a nation's GDP. This would equate to the United States saving well over $1.5 trillion over ten years.

Against the Public Goods Conception of Public Health

Public health ethicists face two difficult questions. First, what makes something a matter of public health? While protecting citizens from outbreaks of communicable diseases is clearly a matter of public health, is the same true of policies that aim to reduce obesity, gun violence or political corruption? Second, what should the scope of the government’s authority be in promoting public health? May government enact public health policies some citizens reasonably object to or policies that are paternalistic? Recently, some theorists have attempted to address these questions by arguing that something is a matter of public health if and only if it involves a health-related public good, such as clean water or herd immunity. Relatedly, they have argued that appeals to the promotion of public health should only be used to justify the provision of health-related public goods. This public goods conception of public health (PGC) is meant to enjoy advantages over its rivals in three respects: it provides a better definition of public health than rival views, it respects moral disagreement, and it avoids licensing objectionably paternalistic public health policies. We argue, however, that the PGC does just as poorly, or worse, than its rivals in all three respects.

Problems paying medical bills and mental health symptoms post-Affordable Care Act

Healthcare affordability is a worry for many Americans. We examine whether the relationship between having problems paying medical bills and mental health problems changed as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was implemented, which increased health insurance coverage. Data from the 2013–2016 Health Reform Monitoring Survey, a survey of Americans aged 18–64, were used. Using zero-inflated negative binomial regression, adjusted for predisposing, enabling, and need factors, we examined differences in days of mental health symptoms by problems paying medical bills (n = 85,430). From 2013 to 2016, the rates of uninsured and problems paying medical bills decreased from 15.1% to 9.0% and 22.0% to 18.6%, respectively. Having one or more days of mental health symptoms increased from 39.3% to 42.9%. Individuals who reported problems paying medical bills had more days of mental health symptoms (Beta = 0.133, p < 0.001) than those who did not have this problem. Insurance was not significantly associated with days of mental health symptoms. Over the 4-year period, there were not significant differences in days of mental health symptoms by problems paying medical bills or insurance status. Despite improvements in coverage, the relationship between problems paying medical bills and mental health symptoms was not modified.