Volume and diagnosis: an approach to cross-border care in eight European countries

Cross-border healthcare: A review and applicability to North America during COVID-19

Cross-border healthcare is an international agreement for the provision of out of country healthcare for citizens of partnered countries. The European Union (EU) has established itself as a world leader in cross-border healthcare. During the Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the EU used this system to maximize utilization of resources. Countries with capacity accepted critically ill patients from overwhelmed nations, borders remained open to healthcare workers and those seeking medical care in an effort to share the burden of this pandemic. Significant research into the challenges and successes of cross-border healthcare was completed prior to COVID-19, which demonstrated significant benefit for patients. In North America, the response to the COVID-19 crisis has been more isolationist. The Canada-United States border has been closed and bans placed on healthcare workers crossing the border for work. Prior to COVID-19, cross-border healthcare was rare in North America despite its need. We reviewed the literature surrounding cross-border healthcare in the EU, as well as the need for a similar system in North America. We found the EU cross-border healthcare agreements are generally mutually beneficial for participating countries. The North American literature suggested a cross-border healthcare system is feasible. A number of challenges could be identified based on the EU experience. A prior agreement may have been beneficial during the COVID-19 crisis as many Canadian healthcare institutions-maintained capacity to accept critically ill patients.

Factors influencing decisions of Laotian patients to use health care services in Thailand

Background: Thailand has been facing a gradual increase in use of cross-border health care. Nevertheless, no evidence regarding factors influencing cross-border use of health care by Laotian patients in public Thai hospitals among this group has been established.

Objectives: To assess the use of cross-border health care by Laotian patients, and factors that may influence health services in public Thai hospitals along the border.

Methods: This study consisted of two parts. (1) Site-visits to 53 Thai public hospitals along the Thai-Laos border during May to July 2011 and collection of data regarding the use of health care services by Laotian patients. (2) A structured questionnaire survey was conducted via face interviews by trained researchers. Findings were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression.

Results: The most common conditions for which treatment was sought were common diseases and basic operative procedures. All hospitals had been facing substantial financial burden, particularly for inpatient care. The analysis of use indicated that a perception of differences in the quality of health services, ability to pay for treatment anywhere, and distance to health services were three major factors affecting the decision of Laotian patients to cross the border to obtain health care in Thailand. Interviews with hospital directors and staff revealed that more financial support and a clear policy for care of Laotian patients was needed.

Conclusions: The perception of better quality of health care in Thailand by Laotian patients was the major factor affecting cross-border use of health care services. Assistance to improve healthcare in Laos and financial support for subsidizing care for the indigent Laotian patients is needed.

Facilitating safe and successful cross-border healthcare in the European Union

OBJECTIVE

Even though medical travel is expanding, limited research has identified pitfalls along the full process of medical travel. This study explores the experiences of medical travellers, with a focus on potential issues that may threaten safe and effective medical travel.

METHODS

The experiences of medical travellers were assessed using a cross-sectional questionnaire in the Netherlands in 2014. The questionnaire (n=101) contained 52 items measuring the transfer of records, quality of care abroad, follow-up care, and reimbursement. Additionally, experts provided feedback on the pitfalls identified.

RESULTS

63.1% of medical records were not transferred in advance to the clinic abroad, and for 10.7% of cases these remained unknown during treatment. Although quality of care abroad was rated higher than in the home country, follow-up care was initially refused to 22.2% of patients. Additionally, patients reported problems related to reimbursement.

CONCLUSION

More effort is needed to facilitate safe medical travel. Medical professionals should be informed on procedures for medical travellers, especially concerning follow-up care and record transfers. Yet, medical travellers themselves are ultimately responsible for this transfer. Clear information on the necessity of this personal transfer, and clarification on reimbursement options and the authorisation procedure, should be provided by national contact points and third-party payers. Additionally, payment structures to care providers may need adjustments to cover costs of follow-up care.

Reprint of: Dream vs. reality: seven case-studies on the desirability and feasibility of cross-border hospital collaboration in Europe

Despite being a niche phenomenon, cross-border health care collaboration receives a lot of attention in the EU and figures visibly on the policy agenda, in particular since the policy process which eventually led to the adoption of Directive 2011/24/EU. One of the underlying assumptions is that cross-border collaboration is desirable, providing justification to both the European Commission and to border-region stakeholders for promoting it. The purpose of this paper is to question this assumption and to examine the role of actors in pushing (or not) for cross-border collaboration. The analysis takes place in two parts. First, the EU policies to promote cross-border collaboration and the tools employed are examined, namely (a) use of European funds to sponsor concrete border-region collaboration projects, (b) use of European funds to sponsor research which gives visibility to cross-border collaboration, and (c) use of the European Commission's newly acquired legal mandate to encourage "Member States to cooperate in cross-border health care provision in border-regions" (Art. 10) and support "Member States in the development of European reference networks between health care providers and centres of expertise" (Art. 12). Second, evidence gathered in 2011-2013 from seven European border-regions on hospital cross-border collaboration is systematically reviewed to assess the reality of cross-border collaboration - can it work and when, and why do actors engage in cross-border collaboration? The preliminary findings suggest that while the EU plays a prominent role in some border-region initiatives, cross-border collaboration needs such a specific set of circumstances to work that it is questionable whether it can effectively be promoted. Moreover, local actors make use of the EU (as a source of funding, legislation or legitimisation) to serve their needs.

Patient mobility for cardiac problems: a risk-adjusted analysis in Italy

Background

The Italian National Health System was revised in the last 20 years, introducing new elements such as efficacy, efficiency and competitiveness. Devolution to regional authorities has created a quasi-market system where patients can choose the hospital in which to be treated. Patient mobility therefore becomes an indicator of perceived hospital quality and of financial flows between the regions of Italy. Previous studies analyzed patient mobility in general or by specific disease/diagnosis-related groups but there is a lack of research on the influence of severity of patient condition. The aim of the study was to describe patient mobility, crude and stratified by disease severity, in cardiac surgery units of three health areas (HAs) in Tuscany (Italy).

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, data was gathered from hospital discharge records obtained from the Tuscan Regional Health Agency, Italy. The three HAs (HA1, HA2, HA3) recorded 25,017 planned hospitalizations in cardiac surgery units in the period 2001–2007. Patients were stratified in four All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group (APR-DRG) severity levels. Gandy’s nomogram was used to describe how HAs met health care demand and their capacity to attract patients. Cuzick’s test was used to identify significant differences in time trends.

Results

Raw data showed that the HAs met their own local health care demand. Stratifying by APR-DRG severity, it emerged that capacity to meet local demand remained unchanged for zero-to-minor severity levels, but one HA was less able to meet demand for moderate severity levels or to attract patients from other HAs and Regions of Italy. In fact, HA3 showed a decrease in admissions of local residents.

Conclusions

The study highlights important differences between the three HAs that were only revealed by severity stratification: unlike HA3, HA1 and HA2 seemed able to deal with local demand, even after severity stratification. Planners and researchers can benefit from risk stratification data, which provides more elements for correct comparisons and interventions. In the context of patient mobility, the present study is a step in that direction.

[Cardiovascular disease and aircraft transportation: specificities and issues]

With the development of air transport and travel to distant destinations, the number of passengers and elderly passengers on board increases each year. In this population, cardiovascular events are a major concern. Among medical incidents occurring in-flight they are second-ranked (10%) behind gastrointestinal disorders (25%). Their occurrence may involve life-threatening events and require resuscitation, difficult to perform during flight or in a precarious health environment. Coronary heart disease and pulmonary thromboembolic disease are the most serious manifestations. They are the leading cause of hospitalization in a foreign country and sudden cardiac death occurring during or subsequent to the flight. Their occurrence is explained on aircraft by hypoxia, hypobaria and decreased humidity caused by cabin pressurization and upon arrival by a different environmental context (extreme climates, tropical diseases). Moreover, the occurrence of a cardiovascular event during flight can represent for the air carrier a major economic and logistic problem when diversion occurred. Furthermore, the liability of the practitioner passenger could be involved according to airlines or to the country in which the aircraft is registered. In this context, cardiovascular events during aircraft transportation can be easily prevented by identifying high risk patients, respect of cardiovascular indications to travel, the implementation of simple preventive measures and optimization of medical equipment in commercial flights.

Factors associated with the implementation of quality and safety requirements for cross-border care in acute myocardial infarction: Results from 315 hospitals in four countries

OBJECTIVE

Cross-border patients have specific quality and safety requirements for hospital care. Little is known to what extent hospitals meet these requirements. We aim to assess their current level, and the factors associated with their implementation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 315 hospitals and cardiology departments in the Czech Republic, France, Poland and Spain. Employing bi-variate statistics and logistic regression analysis, we assess quality and safety requirements for cross-border patients and their association with hospital characteristics, cross-border care arrangements, proximity to EU borders, the hospital's quality improvement system, and country.

RESULTS

Certain quality and safety requirements are frequently met (administrative support or informed consent using forms in various EU languages) while others are widely absent (case-managers, contacts to patients' general practitioners). Due to communication problems, it is often not possible to inform patients about their condition and treatment. Discharge summaries are rarely available in other than the vernacular languages, and medication upon discharge and arranging back-transfer occur occasionally only. Logistic regression analysis suggests a strong effect of country-level covariates (followed by type of hospital, hospital size and hospital's quality improvement system), but covariates are not consistently associated with higher rates of implementation. Hospitals with existing cross-border care collaboration do not differ substantially from hospitals without such arrangements.

CONCLUSION

Cross-border patients have specific quality and safety requirements that are not always met. Various factors are associated with these requirements; however, the trend is not systematic and the underlying mechanisms need to be studied further to inform policy decisions.

[Clinical safety and patient oriented care: descriptive study of 113 Spanish hospitals and similarities in other European countries]

OBJECTIVES

This study describes the stage of development of the Spanish acute care hospitals quality improvement systems. It also presents data on their achievement of some specific requirements related to clinical safety and patient oriented care. Additional data from seven other European countries are included, in order to provide a comparative reference for the analysis of results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Cross-sectional descriptive study developed in acute care hospitals with more than 100 beds from 8 European countries. Data was gathered using an on-line questionnaire that had more than 500 close questions. In order to validate the responses, a sample of the hospitals that had answered the questionnaire received an evaluation by external assessors.

RESULTS

A total of 113 public and private Spanish hospitals participated in the study, which represented 34% of the total group that met the inclusion criteria. Another 276 hospitals from 7 other countries also answered the questionnaire. The results associated with quality management, clinical safety and patient oriented care from both groups are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements must be made in those areas where Spanish hospitals have a lower developmental level than the rest of the participating countries: public dissemination of results from external quality assessments, development of some key mechanisms to promote clinical safety and patient involvement in organisational management.

Quality requirements for cross-border care in Europe: a qualitative study of patients', professionals' and healthcare financiers' views

BACKGROUND

In the past decade the issue of patient mobility has emerged on the European health policy agenda. Although the volume of patients crossing borders to obtain healthcare is low, it is increasing continuously and, due to its legal, financial and medical implications, has generated considerable interest among health policy and other decision makers. However, there is little information available on the safety and patient-centredness of cross-border care and neither governments nor citizens have an explicit basis for comparing healthcare delivery in Europe.

METHODS

This study investigated the viewpoints of patients, professionals and healthcare financiers on the safety and patient-centredness of cross-border care. Qualitative interviews were carried out during 2005 and early 2006 with 40 patients, 30 professionals (doctors, nurses and managers) and 3 healthcare-financing bodies.

RESULTS

Although cross-border care has become a common issue in many European countries, there remain uncertainties on the side of each of the parties addressed--patients, professionals and financiers--with regard to the provision of cross-border care. One of the most striking results of this project is the current lack of research on systematic knowledge on the quality of cross-border care.

CONCLUSION

Many of the issues identified through this research may have a potential impact on the quality and safety of cross-border care and will support further investigation and help shape the health policy agenda on patients crossing borders in European Union countries.

Cross-border care and healthcare quality improvement in Europe: the MARQuIS research project

Citizens are increasingly crossing borders within the European Union (EU). Europeans have always been free to travel to receive care abroad, but if they wished to benefit from their statutory social protection scheme, they were subject to their local or national legislation on social protection. This changed in 1991 with the European Court of Justice defining healthcare as a service, starting a debate on the right balance between different principles in European treaties: movement of persons, goods and services, versus the responsibility of member states to organise their healthcare systems. Simultaneously, cross-border cooperation has developed between member states.

In this context, patient mobility has become a relevant issue on the EU’s agenda. The EU funded a number of Scientific Support to Policies (SSP) activities within the Sixth Framework Programme, to provide the evidence needed by EU policy makers to deal with issues that European citizens face due to enhanced mobility in Europe. One SSP project “Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies” (MARQuIS), focused on cross-border care. It aimed to assess the value of different quality strategies, and to provide information needed when: (1) countries contract care for patients moving across borders; and (2) individual hospitals review the design of their quality strategies. This article describes the European context related to healthcare, and its implications for cross-border healthcare in Europe. The background information demonstrates a need for further research and development in this area.