Managed care: US research evidence and its lessons for the NHS

The Hungarian Care Managing Organization Pilot Program

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article was to provide a description of the Hungarian care managing organization (CMO) pilot program and its environment, incentive structure, and preliminary outcomes. The need to change the behavior of doctors to increase the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the system was the key rationale for the Hungarian CMO pilot program.

METHODS

After an application process, nine CMOs were entitled to enter into the system in July 1999. By 2006, there were 14 CMOs covering 2.1 million people. The Hungarian CMO program tried to combine the advantages of both the US managed care programs and the UK general practitioner fundholding system, within the constraints and opportunities of a Central-European country committed to a single-payer health insurance system.

RESULTS

The revenue of CMOs derived from a risk-adjusted capitation. The capitation formula was weighted only by age and sex. The expenditures of the CMOs included all the health expenditures on their patients that occurred in any part of the health care system. The average savings rate for all CMOs for the fiscal years 1999 to 2007 was 4.94%. The highest rates of savings were realized in chronic and acute inpatient care and medical devices. The pilot was discontinued in 2008 without a comprehensive evaluation of the experience.

CONCLUSIONS

We can conclude that this pilot had a significant contribution to the modernization of the Hungarian health care system.

Quality check: does it matter for quality how you organize and pay for health care? A review of the international evidence

Health systems in high-income countries have experienced significant organizational and financial reforms over the last 25 years. The implications of these changes for the effectiveness of health care systems need to be examined, particularly in relation to their effects on the quality of health services (a pertinent issue in the United Kingdom in light of the Francis Report). Systematic review methodology was used to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews of quantitative intervention studies (experimental and observational) on the effects of health system organizational and financial reforms (system financing, funding allocations, direct purchasing arrangements, organization of service provision, and service integration) on quality of care in high-income countries. Nineteen systematic reviews were identified. The evidence on the payment of providers and purchaser-provider splits was inconclusive. In contrast, there is some evidence that greater integration of services can benefit patients. There were no relevant studies located relating to funding allocation reforms or direct purchasing arrangements. The systematic review-level evidence base suggests that the privatization and marketization of health care systems does not improve quality, with most financial and organizational reforms having either inconclusive or negative effects.

All Things Being Equal: Does it Matter for Equity How You Organize and Pay for Health Care? A Review of the International Evidence

Over the last 25 years, the health care systems of most high-income countries have experienced extensive—usually market-based—organizational and financial reforms. The impact of these system changes on health equity has been hotly debated. Examining evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of health care system organizational and financial reforms will add empirical information to this debate, identify any evidence gaps, and help policy development. Systematic review methodology was used to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews of quantitative intervention studies (experimental and observational) of the effects on equity in health care access and/or health status of health care system organizational and financial reforms (system financing, funding allocations, direct purchasing arrangements, organization of service provision, and health and social care system integration) in high-income countries. Nine systematic reviews were identified. Private insurance and out-of-pocket payments as well as the marketization and privatization of services have either negative or inconclusive equity effects. The evidence base on the health equity effects of managed care programs or integrated partnerships between health and social services is inconclusive. There were no relevant studies located that related to resource allocation reforms. The systematic review-level evidence base suggests that financial and organizational health care system reforms have had either inconclusive or negative impacts on health equity both in terms of access relative to need and in terms of health outcomes.

[Do gatekeeping programs increase equality of health care in Germany? A comparison of the health care situation of participants and nonparticipants]

This article compares the health care situation of participants in programs of general practitioner-centered health care (gatekeeping) in Germany (participants) with that of statutory health insurance holders who are not participating in such programs (nonparticipants). Because a key objective of the general practitioner model is to reduce the number of visits to specialists, the article also examines factors influencing frequent utilization of specialists in both groups. The analysis draws on a survey conducted by the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, 2010) based on a sample representative of the German population. In this context, 5,232 holders of statutory health insurance aged between 18 and 79 years were interviewed on health care policy issues. The results show that regulating the utilization of specialists through the gatekeeping function of general practitioners succeeds in facilitating similar utilization rates across educational levels, between cities and towns, and between men and women. Thus, gatekeeping programs contribute to the reduction of health care inequalities.

Economic evaluation of interactive teledermatology compared with conventional care

Teledermatology offers a means of providing specialist care to underserved patients. The objectives of this study were to compare the costs of interactive teledermatology with conventional care, and to evaluate from a healthcare provider perspective whether interactive teledermatology is economically viable in the northeastern region of the United States. We studied the interactive teledermatology practice at Nantucket Cottage Hospital on Nantucket Island and the ambulatory clinics at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. The cost-minimization analysis compared the costs of an interactive teledermatology practice with that of a face-to-face dermatology clinic. One-way sensitivity analyses examined the effect of varying the costs of technology, physician compensation, or clinic space on the overall cost of interactive teledermatology. We also assessed the economic viability of the interactive teledermatology practice by comparing the operating costs with reimbursements. The total hourly operating costs for the interactive teledermatology practice on Nantucket Island and the face-to-face clinic in Boston were $274 and $346, respectively. Three separate one-way sensitivity analyses showed that, for the cost of the teledermatology practice to equal that of the conventional clinic, the cost of teledermatology technology could increase by 9.3-fold, dermatologists working at the teledermatology practice could be compensated up to $197 an hour, or the cost of teledermatology clinic space could reach $57 an hour. Our analysis also showed that the hourly reimbursement for the teledermatology practice was $487, which exceeded its hourly operating cost of $274. The cost of operating an interactive teledermatology practice in a remote region may be less than that of a conventional clinic in a nearby urban center in the northeastern area of the United States. From a healthcare provider perspective, interactive teledermatology can be an economically viable means of providing dermatological care to remote regions.

Monitoring outcomes with relational databases: Does it improve quality of care?

There are 3 key ingredients in improving quality of medial care: 1) using a scientific process of improvement, 2) executing the process at the lowest possible level in the organization, and 3) measuring the results of any change reliably. Relational databases when used within these guidelines are of great value in these efforts if they contain reliable information that is pertinent to the project and used in a scientific process of quality improvement by a front line team. Unfortunately, the data are frequently unreliable and/or not pertinent to the local process and is used by persons at very high levels in the organization without a scientific process and without reliable measurement of the outcome. Under these circumstances the effectiveness of relational databases in improving care is marginal at best, frequently wasteful and has the potential to be harmful. This article explores examples of these concepts.

Methodological strategies for the identification and synthesis of 'evidence' to support decision-making in relation to complex healthcare systems and practices

This paper addresses the limitations of current methods supporting 'evidence-based health-care' in relation to complex aspects of care, including those questions that are best supported by descriptive or non-empirical evidence. The paper identifies some new methods, which may be useful in aiding the synthesis of data in these areas. The methods detailed are broadly divided into those that facilitate the identification of evidence and those that enable the interpretation of the data retrieved. To illustrate some of the issues involved, reference is made to a multimethod review recently completed by the authors, which aimed to identify factors that promote continuity in the transition from child to adult health and social care. It is argued that as healthcare organisations are becoming increasingly preoccupied with the evidence base of practice, such methods may help ensure that aspects of care and approaches that are outside the dominant pharmaco-medical domain maintain a prominent position on the healthcare agenda while remaining open to external scrutiny. Healthcare professionals who use such approaches need to know their relative utility and benefits to inform clinical decisions, so as to ensure that best practice is observed.