Association of Delivery System Integration and Outcomes for Major Cancer Surgery

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

INTRODUCTION

Vertical integration models involve integrating services from different levels of care (e.g., primary care, acute care, post-acute care). Therefore, one of their main objectives is to increase continuity of care, potentially improving outcomes like efficiency, quality, and access or even enabling cost containment.

OBJECTIVES

This study conducts a literature review and aims at contributing to the contentious discussion regarding the effects of vertical integration reforms in terms of efficiency, costs containment, quality, and access.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature published until February 2020. The articles respecting the conceptual framework were included in an exhaustive analysis to study the impact of vertical integration on costs, prices of care, efficiency, quality, and access.

RESULTS

A sample of 64 papers resulted from the screening process. The impact of vertical integration on costs and prices of care appears to be negative. Decreases in technical efficiency upon vertical integration are practically out of the question. Nevertheless, there is no substantial inclination to visualise a positive influence. The same happens with the quality of care. Regarding access, the lack of available articles on this outcome limits conjectures.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, it is not clear yet whether vertically integrated healthcare providers positively impact the overall delivery care system. Nevertheless, the recent growing trend in the number of studies suggests a promising future on the analysis of this topic.

Value-Based Healthcare in Urology: A Collaborative Review

CONTEXT

In response to growing concerns over rising costs and major variation in quality, improving value for patients has been proposed as a fundamentally new strategy for how healthcare should be delivered, measured, and remunerated.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature regarding the implementation and impact of value-based healthcare in urology.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed to identify studies that described the implementation of one or more elements of value-based healthcare in urologic settings and in which the associated change in healthcare value had been measured. Twenty-two publications were selected for inclusion.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Reorganization of urologic care around medical conditions was associated with increased use of guidelines-compliant care for men with prostate cancer, and improved outcomes for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Measuring outcomes for every patient was associated with improved prostate cancer outcomes, while the measurement of costs using time-driven activity-based costing was associated with reduced resource utilization in a pediatric multidisciplinary clinic. Centralization of urologic cancer care in the UK, Denmark, and Canada was associated with overall improved outcomes, although systems integration in the USA yielded mixed results among urologic cancer patients. No studies have yet examined bundled payments for episodes of care, expanding the geographic reach for centers of excellence, or building enabling information technology platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have critically assessed the actual or simulated implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, but the available literature suggests promising early results. In order to effectively redesign care, there is a need for further research to both evaluate the potential results of proposed value-based healthcare interventions and measure their effects where already implemented.

PATIENT SUMMARY

While few studies have evaluated the implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, the available literature suggests promising early results.