衡量积极采购在医疗保健:分析资金的重新分配之间的供应商评估采购系统性能在荷兰

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Health Policy and Management Pub Date : 2023-09-17 DOI:10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7506
Niek Waltherus Stadhouders, Xander Koolman, Marit A.C. Tanke, Hans Maarse, Patrick P.T. Jeurissen
{"title":"衡量积极采购在医疗保健:分析资金的重新分配之间的供应商评估采购系统性能在荷兰","authors":"Niek Waltherus Stadhouders, Xander Koolman, Marit A.C. Tanke, Hans Maarse, Patrick P.T. Jeurissen","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Purchasing systems aim to improve resource allocation in healthcare markets. The Netherlands is characterized by four different purchasing systems: managed competition in the hospital market, a non-competitive single payer system for long-term care (LTC), municipal procurement for home care and social services, and self-procurement via personal budgets. We hypothesize that managed competition and competitive payer reforms boost reallocations of provider market share by means of active purchasing, ie, redistributing funds from high-quality providers to low-quality providers. Methods: We define a Market Activity Index (MAI) as the sum of funds reallocated between providers annually. Provider expenditures are extracted from provider financial statements between 2006 and 2019. We compare MAI in six healthcare sectors under four different purchasing systems, adjusting for reforms, and market entry/exit. Next, we perform in-depth analyses on the hospital market. Using multivariate linear regressions, we relate reallocations to selective contracting, provider quality, and market characteristics. Results: No difference was found between reallocations in the hospital care market under managed competition and the non-competitive single payer LTC (MAI between 2% and 3%), while MAI was markedly higher under procurement by municipalities and personal budget holders (between 5% and 15%). While competitive reforms temporarily increased MAI, no structural effects were found. Relatively low hospital MAI could not be explained by market characteristics. Furthermore, the extent of selective contracting or hospital quality differences had no significant effects on reallocations of funds. Conclusion: Dutch managed competition and competitive purchaser reforms had no discernible effect on reallocations of funds between providers. This casts doubt on the mechanisms advocated by managed competition and active purchasing to improve allocative efficiency.","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":"181 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Active Purchasing in Healthcare: Analysing Reallocations of Funds Between Providers to Evaluate Purchasing Systems Performance in The Netherlands\",\"authors\":\"Niek Waltherus Stadhouders, Xander Koolman, Marit A.C. Tanke, Hans Maarse, Patrick P.T. Jeurissen\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7506\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Purchasing systems aim to improve resource allocation in healthcare markets. The Netherlands is characterized by four different purchasing systems: managed competition in the hospital market, a non-competitive single payer system for long-term care (LTC), municipal procurement for home care and social services, and self-procurement via personal budgets. We hypothesize that managed competition and competitive payer reforms boost reallocations of provider market share by means of active purchasing, ie, redistributing funds from high-quality providers to low-quality providers. Methods: We define a Market Activity Index (MAI) as the sum of funds reallocated between providers annually. Provider expenditures are extracted from provider financial statements between 2006 and 2019. We compare MAI in six healthcare sectors under four different purchasing systems, adjusting for reforms, and market entry/exit. Next, we perform in-depth analyses on the hospital market. Using multivariate linear regressions, we relate reallocations to selective contracting, provider quality, and market characteristics. Results: No difference was found between reallocations in the hospital care market under managed competition and the non-competitive single payer LTC (MAI between 2% and 3%), while MAI was markedly higher under procurement by municipalities and personal budget holders (between 5% and 15%). While competitive reforms temporarily increased MAI, no structural effects were found. Relatively low hospital MAI could not be explained by market characteristics. Furthermore, the extent of selective contracting or hospital quality differences had no significant effects on reallocations of funds. Conclusion: Dutch managed competition and competitive purchaser reforms had no discernible effect on reallocations of funds between providers. This casts doubt on the mechanisms advocated by managed competition and active purchasing to improve allocative efficiency.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Policy and Management\",\"volume\":\"181 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Policy and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7506\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7506","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:采购系统旨在改善医疗保健市场的资源配置。荷兰的特点是有四种不同的采购制度:医院市场的管理竞争、长期护理的非竞争性单一付款人制度、家庭护理和社会服务的市政采购以及通过个人预算进行的自我采购。我们假设有管理的竞争和竞争性付款人改革通过主动购买促进了提供者市场份额的重新分配,即将资金从高质量提供者重新分配给低质量提供者。方法:我们将市场活动指数(MAI)定义为每年在供应商之间重新分配的资金总和。提供商支出从提供商2006年至2019年的财务报表中提取。我们比较了六个医疗保健部门在四种不同采购制度下的MAI,并根据改革和市场进入/退出进行了调整。接下来,我们对医院市场进行深入分析。通过多元线性回归,我们将再分配与选择性合同、供应商质量和市场特征联系起来。结果:在管理竞争下的医院护理市场的再分配与非竞争的单一付款人LTC之间没有差异(MAI在2%至3%之间),而在市政当局和个人预算持有人采购下的MAI明显更高(在5%至15%之间)。虽然竞争性改革暂时提高了MAI,但没有发现结构性影响。相对较低的医院MAI不能用市场特征来解释。此外,选择性承包的程度或医院质量差异对资金的再分配没有显著影响。结论:荷兰管理竞争和竞争性购买者改革对提供者之间的资金重新分配没有明显的影响。这使人们对管理竞争和主动采购所提倡的提高配置效率的机制产生了怀疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring Active Purchasing in Healthcare: Analysing Reallocations of Funds Between Providers to Evaluate Purchasing Systems Performance in The Netherlands
Background: Purchasing systems aim to improve resource allocation in healthcare markets. The Netherlands is characterized by four different purchasing systems: managed competition in the hospital market, a non-competitive single payer system for long-term care (LTC), municipal procurement for home care and social services, and self-procurement via personal budgets. We hypothesize that managed competition and competitive payer reforms boost reallocations of provider market share by means of active purchasing, ie, redistributing funds from high-quality providers to low-quality providers. Methods: We define a Market Activity Index (MAI) as the sum of funds reallocated between providers annually. Provider expenditures are extracted from provider financial statements between 2006 and 2019. We compare MAI in six healthcare sectors under four different purchasing systems, adjusting for reforms, and market entry/exit. Next, we perform in-depth analyses on the hospital market. Using multivariate linear regressions, we relate reallocations to selective contracting, provider quality, and market characteristics. Results: No difference was found between reallocations in the hospital care market under managed competition and the non-competitive single payer LTC (MAI between 2% and 3%), while MAI was markedly higher under procurement by municipalities and personal budget holders (between 5% and 15%). While competitive reforms temporarily increased MAI, no structural effects were found. Relatively low hospital MAI could not be explained by market characteristics. Furthermore, the extent of selective contracting or hospital quality differences had no significant effects on reallocations of funds. Conclusion: Dutch managed competition and competitive purchaser reforms had no discernible effect on reallocations of funds between providers. This casts doubt on the mechanisms advocated by managed competition and active purchasing to improve allocative efficiency.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
International Journal of Health Policy and Management Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a monthly open access, peer-reviewed journal which serves as an international and interdisciplinary setting for the dissemination of health policy and management research. It brings together individual specialties from different fields, notably health management/policy/economics, epidemiology, social/public policy, and philosophy into a dynamic academic mix.
期刊最新文献
Why Are African Researchers Left Behind in Global Scientific Publications? - A Viewpoint. Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility; Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study". Phase IV Drug Trials With a Canadian Site: A Comparison of Industry and Non-Industry-Funded Trials. The Rhetoric of Decolonizing Global Health Fails to Address the Reality of Settler Colonialism. Gaza as a Case in Point. Building a Systems Map: Applying Systems Thinking to Unhealthy Commodity Industry Influence on Public Health Policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1