Dataset Information

Regional incentives and patient cross-border mobility: evidence from the Italian experience.

ABSTRACT: In recent years, accreditation of private hospitals followed by decentralisation of the Italian National Health Service (NHS) into 21 regional health systems has provided a good empirical ground for investigating the Tiebout principle of "voting with their feet". We examine the infra-regional trade-off between greater patient choice (due to an increase in hospital services supply) and financial equilibrium, and we relate it to the significant phenomenon of Cross-Border Mobility (CBM) between Italian regions. Focusing on the rules supervising the financial agreements between regional authorities and providers of hospital care, we find incentives for private accredited providers in attracting patient inflows.The analysis is undertaken from an institutional, regulatory and empirical perspective. We select a sample of five regions with higher positive CBM balance and we examine regional regulations governing the contractual agreements between purchasers and providers of hospital care. According to this sample, we provide a statistical analysis of CBM and apply a Regional Attraction Ability Index (RAAI), aimed at testing patient preferences for private/public accredited providers.We find that this index is systematically higher for private providers, both in the case of distance/boundary patients and of excellence/general hospitals.Conclusions address both financial issues regarding the coverage of regional healthcare systems and equity issues on patient healthcare access. They also raise concerns on the new European Union (EU) directive inherent to patient mobility across Europe.

SUBMITTER: Brenna E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4450731 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Regional incentives and patient cross-border mobility: evidence from the Italian experience.

Brenna Elenka E Spandonaro Federico F

International journal of health policy and management 20150320 6

<h4>Background</h4>In recent years, accreditation of private hospitals followed by decentralisation of the Italian National Health Service (NHS) into 21 regional health systems has provided a good empirical ground for investigating the Tiebout principle of "voting with their feet". We examine the infra-regional trade-off between greater patient choice (due to an increase in hospital services supply) and financial equilibrium, and we relate it to the significant phenomenon of Cross-Border Mobilit ...[more]

PMID: 26029895

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMobility of workers living in one country and working in a different country has increased in the European Union. Exposed to commuting factors, cross-border workers (CBWs) constitute a potential high-risk population. But the relationships between health and commuting abroad are under-documented. Our aims were to: (1) measure the prevalence of the perceived health status and the physical health outcomes (activity limitation, chronic diseases, disability and no leisure activities), (2) analyse their associations with commuting status as well as (3) with income and health index among CBWs.MethodsBased on the 'Enquête Emploi', the French cross-sectional survey segment of the European Labour Force Survey (EU LFS), the population was composed of 2,546,802 workers. Inclusion criteria for the samples were aged between 20 and 60 years and living in the French cross-border departments of Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg. The Health Index is an additional measure obtained with five health variables. A logistic model was used to estimate the odds ratios of each group of CBWs, taking non-cross border workers (NCBWs) as the reference group, controlling by demographic background and labour status variables.ResultsA sample of 22,828 observations (2456 CBWs vs. 20,372 NCBWs) was retained. The CBW status is negatively associated with chronic diseases and disability. A marginal improvement of the health index is correlated with a wage premium for both NCBWs and CBWs. Commuters to Luxembourg have the best health outcomes, whereas commuters to Germany the worst.ConclusionCBWs are healthier and have more income. Interpretations suggest (1) a healthy cross-border phenomenon steming from a social selection and a positive association between income and the health index is confirmed; (2) the existence of major health disparities among CBWs; and (3) the rejection of the spillover phenomenon assumption for CBWs. The newly founded European Labour Authority (ELA) should take into account health policies as a promising way to support the cross-border mobility within the European Union.

Project description:IntroductionPeople are increasingly mobile for numerous reasons, including healthcare. Patient mobility has vast implications for individuals, communities and whole populations and yet, to date, research on patient mobility has been quite limited. Only a small body of evidence exists on patient mobility between low-income and middle-income countries, instead having focused primarily on cross-border movement between high-income and low-income countries. In this paper, we present a protocol for examining this under-studied phenomenon.Methods and analysisWe propose to examine patient mobility between low-income and middle-income countries using a realist synthesis approach. Specifically, we aim to document why patients from low-income and middle-income countries cross international borders for healthcare, by identifying the mechanisms through which patients decide to cross-borders, and the contextual characteristics of domestic health markets that influence this choice. An underlying theory was established, based on the lead author's experience and a brief literature review, which will provide the basis to analyse search results in a subsequent paper. Search results will be obtained from databases (Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, EconLit, Web of Science) and the grey literature. An expert committee will be enlisted, prior to screening results, to review search results to ensure comprehensiveness. Based on this preliminary theory, we propose that, in some low-income and middle-income country markets, the interaction between demand-side and supply-side determinants results in market imperfections that, in turn, lead to patient movement across borders.Ethics and disseminationThe study does not involve primary research and, therefore, does not require formal ethical approval; we do, however, follow the relevant standards of utility, usefulness, feasibility, propriety, accuracy and accountability. The standards of realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis (RAMESES) will be adhered to in reporting the findings of the review. Once completed, the findings of the resulting manuscript will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberThis protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42014014391.

Project description:ContextHealth workforce cross-border mobility has an impact not only on individual health workers, but also on how health services are organized, planned, and delivered. This paper presents the results of a study of current mobility trends of health professionals along the borders between Portugal and Spain. The objective was to describe the profile of mobile physicians and nurses; to elicit the opinions of employers on mobility factors; to describe incentive policies to retain or attract health professionals; and to collect and analyse employers' opinions on the impact of this mobility on their health services.MethodsPhone interviews of key informants were used to collect relevant data. The interviews were conducted during December 2010 and January 2011 in health organizations along the border of the two countries. In Portugal and Spain, four and 13 organizations were selected, respectively. Interviews were obtained in all the Portuguese organizations and in four of the Spanish organizations.ResultsFindings suggest that cross-border mobility between the two countries has decreased. From Spain to Portugal, mobility trends are mainly of physicians who seek professional development in the form of specialization, the availability of positions, better salaries, and the perceived good living conditions. The mobility of nurses lasted until 2008, when reforms improved working conditions in Spain and contributed to reversing the flow. Since then, there has been an increase of Portuguese nurses going to Spain seeking better working conditions or simply a job. Portuguese nurses as well as Spanish physicians are well considered in terms of professionalism and qualifications by their Spanish and Portuguese hosts, respectively.ConclusionsThere is a deficit of valid data on the health workforce in general. The present study allowed further exploration of the reality of the mobility trends between Portugal and Spain. At present, the mobility trends are mainly of Spanish physicians to Portugal and Portuguese nurses to Spain. There is a consensus on both sides of the border that the benefits of migratory flows are much greater than the limited problems (for example, language and salary differences) that they may bring.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions. DESIGN:Secondary analysis of the 2011/2012 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n=69 086). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Patients with cancer treated by the English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:64 patient experience measures covering all aspects of cancer care (pre-diagnosis to discharge). METHODS:Using mixed effects logistic regression, we explored whether poorer scores in London hospitals could be explained by patient case-mix (age, gender, ethnicity and cancer type). Because patients referred to tertiary centres and/or with complex medical problems may report more critical experiences, we also explored whether the experiences reported in London may reflect higher concentration of teaching hospitals in the capital. Finally, using the data from the (general) Adult Inpatients Survey, we explored whether the extent of poorer experience reported by London patients was similar for respondents to either survey. RESULTS:For 52/64 questions, there was evidence of poorer experience in London, with the percentage of patients reporting a positive experience being lower compared with the rest of England by a median of 3.7% (IQR 2.5-5.4%). After case-mix adjustment there was still evidence for worse experience in London for 45/64 question [corrected]. In addition, adjusting for teaching hospital status made trivial difference to the case-mix-adjusted findings. There was evidence that London versus rest-of-England differences were greater for patients with cancer compared with (general) hospital inpatients for 10 of 16 questions in both the Cancer Patient Experience and the Adult Inpatients Surveys. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse care experiences and by and large these differences are not explained by patient case-mix or teaching hospital status. Efforts to improve care in London should aim to meet patient expectations and improve care quality.

Project description:BackgroundTremendous progress has been made in the last ten years in reducing morbidity and mortality caused by malaria, in part because of increases in global funding for malaria control and elimination. Today, many countries are striving for malaria elimination. However, a major challenge is the neglect of cross-border and regional initiatives in malaria control and elimination. This paper seeks to better understand Global Fund support for multi-country initiatives.MethodsDocuments and proposals were extracted and reviewed from two main sources, the Global Fund website and Aidspan.org. Documents and reports from the Global Fund Technical Review Panel, Board, and Secretariat documents such as guidelines and proposal templates were reviewed to establish the type of policies enacted and guidance provided from the Global Fund on multi-country initiatives and applications. From reviewing this information, the researchers created 29 variables according to eight dimensions to use in a review of Round 10 applications. All Round 10 multi-country applications (for HIV, malaria and tuberculosis) and all malaria multi-country applications (6) from Rounds 1 - 10 were extracted from the Global Fund website. A blind review was conducted of Round 10 applications using the 29 variables as a framework, followed by a review of four of the six successful malaria multi-country grant applications from Rounds 1 - 10.FindingsDuring Rounds 3 - 10 of the Global Fund, only 5.8% of grants submitted were for multi-country initiatives. Out of 83 multi-country proposals submitted, 25.3% were approved by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) for funding, compared to 44.9% of single-country applications. The majority of approved multi-country applications were for HIV (76.2%), followed by malaria (19.0%), then tuberculosis (4.8%). TRP recommendations resulted in improvements to application forms, although guidance was generally vague. The in-depth review of Round 10 multi-country proposals showed that applicants described their projects in one of two ways: a regional 'network approach' by which benefits are derived from economies of scale or from enhanced opportunities for mutual support and learning or the development of common policies and approaches; or a 'cross-border' approach for enabling activities to be more effectively delivered towards border-crossing populations or vectors. In Round 10, only those with a 'network approach' were recommended for funding. The Global Fund has only ever approved six malaria multi-country applications. Four approved applications stated strong arguments for a multi-country initiative, combining both 'cross-border' and 'network' approaches.ConclusionWith the cancellation of Round 11 and the proposal that the Global Fund adopt a more targeted and strategic approach to funding, the time is opportune for the Global Fund to develop a clear consensus about the key factors and criteria for funding malaria specific multi-country initiatives. This study found that currently there was a lack of guidance on the key features that a successful multi-country proposal needs to be approved and that applications directed towards the 'network' approach were most successful in Round 10. This type of multi-country proposal may favour other diseases such as HIV, whereas the need for malaria control and elimination is different, focusing on cross-border coordination and delivery of interventions to specific groups. The Global Fund should seek to address these issues and give better guidance to countries and regions and investigate disease-specific calls for multi-country and regional applications.

Dataset Information

Regional incentives and patient cross-border mobility: evidence from the Italian experience.

Publications

Regional incentives and patient cross-border mobility: evidence from the Italian experience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure