Dataset Information

Towards a stakeholders' consensus on patient payment policy: the views of health-care consumers, providers, insurers and policy makers in six Central and Eastern European countries.

ABSTRACT: Although patient charges for health-care services may contribute to a more sustainable health-care financing, they often raise public opposition, which impedes their introduction. Thus, a consensus among the main stakeholders on the presence and role of patient charges should be worked out to assure their successful implementation.To analyse the acceptability of formal patient charges for health-care services in a basic package among different health-care system stakeholders in six Central and Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Ukraine).Qualitative data were collected in 2009 via focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with health-care consumers, providers, policy makers and insurers. The same participants were asked to fill in a self-administrative questionnaire. Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed separately to outline similarities and differences in the opinions between the stakeholder groups and across countries.There is a rather weak consensus on patient charges in the countries. Health policy makers and insurers strongly advocate patient charges. Health-care providers overall support charges but their financial profits from the system strongly affects their approval. Consumers are against paying for services, mostly due to poor quality and access to health-care services and inability to pay.To build consensus on patient charges, the payment policy should be responsive to consumers' needs with regard to quality and equity. Transparency and accountability in the health-care system should be improved to enhance public trust and acceptance of patient payments.

SUBMITTER: Tambor M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5060799 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Towards a stakeholders' consensus on patient payment policy: the views of health-care consumers, providers, insurers and policy makers in six Central and Eastern European countries.

Tambor Marzena M Pavlova Milena M Golinowska Stanisława S Sowada Christoph C Groot Wim W

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20121228 4

<h4>Background</h4>Although patient charges for health-care services may contribute to a more sustainable health-care financing, they often raise public opposition, which impedes their introduction. Thus, a consensus among the main stakeholders on the presence and role of patient charges should be worked out to assure their successful implementation.<h4>Aim</h4>To analyse the acceptability of formal patient charges for health-care services in a basic package among different health-care system st ...[more]

PMID: 23279115

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, little is known about the types of evidence used by policy makers. This study aimed to investigate how policy makers in the health domain use and evaluate evidence and how this differs from academic epidemiologists. By having a better understanding of how policy makers select, evaluate, and use evidence, academics can tailor the way in which that evidence is produced, potentially leading to more effective knowledge translation.MethodsAn exploratory mixed-methods study design was used. Quantitative measures were collected via an anonymous online survey (n?=?28), with sampling from three health-related government and non-government organizations. Semi-structured interviews with policy makers (n?=?20) and epidemiologists (n?=?6) were conducted to gather qualitative data.ResultsPolicy makers indicated systematic reviews were the preferred research resource (19%), followed closely by qualitative research (16%). Neither policy makers nor epidemiologists used grading instruments to evaluate evidence. In the web survey, policy makers reported that consistency and strength of evidence (93%), the quality of data (93%), bias in the evidence (79%), and recency of evidence (79%) were the most important factors taken into consideration when evaluating the available evidence. The same results were found in the qualitative interviews. Epidemiologists focused on the methodology used in the study. The most cited barriers to using robust evidence, according to policy makers, were political considerations (60%), time limitations (55%), funding (50%), and research not being applicable to current policies (50%).ConclusionThe policy maker's investigation did not report a systematic approach to evaluating evidence. Although there was some overlap between what policy makers and epidemiologists identified as high-quality evidence, there was also some important differences. This suggests that the best scientific evidence may not routinely be used in the development of policy. In essence, the policy-making process relied on other jurisdictions' policies and the opinions of internal staff members as primary evidence sources to inform policy decisions. Findings of this study suggest that efforts should be directed toward making scientific information more systematically available to policy makers.

Project description:BackgroundReadily accessible to the public, community pharmacies (CPs) were placed under increased pressure during the COVID-19 pandemic. In England, dispensing volume increased by 25% between February and March 2020. This followed a decade of stagnant government funding, which has been attributed to CP closures. If another pandemic emerged, the reduced number of CPs may face increased pressures.ObjectiveTo explore CP service provision in England throughout the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspectives of providers and policy makers, including what can be learned in preparation for any future pandemic.MethodsCP providers (n = 10) and policy makers (n = 6) were interviewed via telephone between June and September 2021. Interviews were transcribed and then analysed thematically using NVivo.ResultsPandemic specific pressures were identified, as well as long-term issues which preceded the pandemic. Increased workload was recognised by both providers and policy makers due to changes in prescribing habits and was exacerbated by staff shortages. CP staff safety was a major concern, with limited personal protective equipment provided despite being open to the public. General Practitioner (GP) surgeries received more protective equipment than CP and still referred patients to pharmacy e.g., for a blood pressure check.ConclusionsThe pandemic re-confirmed CPs role of providing accessible healthcare, particularly medicines provision, but also highlighted the demand for in-person clinical services. Improved communication channels between CP and GP surgeries are required, as is pandemic prescribing guidance to ensure appropriate prescribing to safeguard the medicines supply chain. To ensure the health of all providers is fairly protected, activities which require in-person contact or can be undertaken remotely by CP, GP surgeries and other providers should be reviewed. For pandemic preparation, legislative changes are required which empower pharmacy to fully contribute to patient care. A review of pharmacy funding and staffing is also needed to ensure services are sustainable.

Project description:BackgroundWide-spread implementation of treatment regimens for the radical cure of vivax malaria is hindered by a range of factors. This has resulted in an increase in the relative proportion of vivax malaria and is an important obstacle in the achievement of global malaria elimination by 2030. The main objective of this study was to explore the current policies guiding the treatment plans on vivax malaria, and the factors affecting the implementation of radical cure in South/South East Asian and Asian Pacific countries.MethodsThis was a qualitative study among respondents who represented national malaria control programmes (NMCPs) or had a role and influence in the national malaria policies. 33 respondents from 17 countries in South/South East Asia and Asia Pacific participated in interviews between October 15 and December 15, 2020. Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually except for two face to face interviews and audio-recorded. Transcribed audio-records underwent thematic analysis using QSR NVivo.ResultsPolicies against vivax malaria were underprioritized, compared with the focus on falciparum malaria and, in particular, drug resistant Plasmodium falciparum strains. Despite the familiarity with primaquine (PQ) as the essential treatment to achieve the radical cure, the respondents contested the need for G6PD testing. Optional G6PD testing was reported to have poor adherence. The fear of adverse events led health workers to hesitate prescribing PQ. In countries where G6PD was mandatory, respondents experienced frequent stockouts of G6PD rapid diagnostic kits in peripheral health facilities, which was compounded by a short shelf life of these tests. These challenges were echoed across participating countries to various degrees. Most respondents agreed that a shorter treatment regimen, such as single dose tafenoquine could resolve these problems but mandatory G6PD testing will be needed. The recommendation of shorter regimens including tafenoquine or high dose PQ requires operational evidence demonstrating the robust performance of point of care G6PD tests (biosensors).ConclusionThere was sparse implementation and low adherence to the radical cure in South/South East Asian and Asian pacific countries. Shorter treatment regimens with appropriate point of care quantitative G6PD tests may resolve the current challenges. Operational evidence on point of care quantitative G6PD tests that includes the feasibility of integrating such tests into the radical cure regimen are critical to ensure its implementation.

Project description:BackgroundRapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice.MethodsWe assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere.ResultsCertain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read.ConclusionsOverall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored.Protocol availabilityThe protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7.

Project description:IntroductionMost studies have reported barriers to guideline usage mainly from doctors' perspective; few have reported the perspective of other stakeholders. This study aimed to determine the views and barriers to adherence of a national clinical practice guideline (CPG) on management of hypertension from the perspectives of policymakers, doctors and allied healthcare professionals.MethodsThis study used a qualitative approach with purposive sampling. Seven in depth interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted with 35 healthcare professionals (policy makers, doctors, pharmacists and nurses) at a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, between February and June 2013. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked. Thematic approach was used to analyse the data.ResultsTwo main themes and three sub-themes emerged from this study. The main themes were (1) variation in the use of CPG and (2) barriers to adherence to CPG. The three sub-themes for barriers were issues inherent to the CPG, systems and policy that is not supportive of CPG use, and attitudes and behaviour of stakeholders. The main users of the CPG were the primary care doctors. Pharmacists only partially use the guidelines, while nurses and policy makers were not using the CPG at all. Participants had suggested few strategies to improve usage and adherence to CPG. First, update the CPG regularly and keep its content simple with specific sections for allied health workers. Second, use technology to facilitate CPG accessibility and provide protected time for implementation of CPG recommendations. Third, incorporate local CPG in professional training, link CPG adherence to key performance indicators and provide incentives for its use.ConclusionsBarriers to the use of CPG hypertension management span across all stakeholders. The development and implementation of CPG focused mainly on doctors with lack of involvement of other healthcare stakeholders. Guidelines should be made simple, current, reliable, accessible, inclusive of all stakeholders and with good policy support.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge Translation (KT) and data visualization play a vital role in the dissemination of data and information to improve healthcare systems. A better understanding of KT and its utility requires examining its processes, and how these interact with available data tools and platforms and various users. In this context, the aim of this paper is to understand how relevant users interact with data visualization tools, in particular Global Burden of Disease (GBD) visualizations, while also examining KT processes related to data visualization.MethodsA qualitative case-study consisting of semi-structured interviews with eight policy officers. Interviewees were selected by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) from three countries: Canada, Kenya and New Zealand. Data were analyzed through framework coding, using qualitative analysis software.ResultsPolicy officers' responses indicated that data can prompt action by engaging users, and effective delivery and translation of data was enhanced by data visualization tools. GBD was considered valuable for use in policy (e.g., planning and prioritizing health policy; facilitating accountability; and tracking and monitoring progress and trends over time and between countries). Using GBD and data visualization tools, participants quickly and easily accessed key information and turned it into actionable messages; engaging visuals captured decision-makers' attention while providing information in a digestible, time-saving manner. However, participants emphasized an overall disconnect between research and public health. Functionality and technical issues, e.g., absence of tool guides and tool complexity, as well as lacking buy-in and awareness of certain tools from those less familiar with GBD, were named as major barriers. In order to address this "know-do" gap, user-friendly knowledge translation tools were stated as crucial, as was the importance of collaboration and leveraging different insights from data generators and users to inform health policy.ConclusionsPolicy officers aware of KT are willing to utilize data visualization tools as they value them as an engaging and important mechanism to foster the use of GBD data in policy-making. To further facilitate policy officers' efforts to effectively use GBD data in policy and practice, further research is required into how users perceive and interact with data visualization and other KT tools.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Providing healthcare professionals with health surveillance data aims to support professional and organisational behaviour change. The UK Five Year Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Strategy 2013 to 2018 identified better access to and use of surveillance data as a key component. Our aim was to determine the extent to which data on antimicrobial use and resistance met the perceived needs of health care professionals and policy-makers at national, regional and local levels, and how provision could be improved. METHODS:We conducted 41 semi-structured interviews with national policy makers in the four Devolved Administrations and 71 interviews with health care professionals in six locations across the United Kingdom selected to achieve maximum variation in terms of population and health system characteristics. Transcripts were analysed thematically using a mix of a priori reasoning guided by the main topics in the interview guide together with themes emerging inductively from the data. Views were considered at three levels - primary care, secondary care and national - and in terms of availability of data, current uses, benefits, gaps and potential improvements. RESULTS:Respondents described a range of uses for prescribing and resistance data. The principal gaps identified were prescribing in private practice, internet prescribing and secondary care (where some hospitals did not have electronic prescribing systems). Some respondents under-estimated the range of data available. There was a perception that the responsibility for collecting and analysing data often rests with a few individuals who may lack sufficient time and appropriate skills. CONCLUSIONS:There is a need to raise awareness of data availability and the potential value of these data, and to ensure that data systems are more accessible. Any skills gap at local level in how to process and use data needs to be addressed. This requires an identification of the best methods to improve support and education relating to AMR data systems.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chile and Colombia are examples of Latin American countries with health systems shaped by similar values. Recently, both countries have crafted policies to regulate the participation of private for-profit insurance companies in their health systems, but through very different mechanisms. This study asks: what values are important in the decision-making processes that crafted these policies? And how and why are they used? METHODS:An embedded multiple-case study design was carried out for 2 specific decisions in each country: (1) in Chile, the development of the Universal Plan of Explicit Entitlements -AUGE/GES - and mandating universal coverage of treatments for high-cost diseases; and (2) in Colombia, the declaration of health as a fundamental right and a mechanism to explicitly exclude technologies that cannot be publicly funded. We interviewed key informants involved in one or more of the decisions and/or in the policy analysis and development process that contributed to the eventual decision. The data analysis involved a constant comparative approach and thematic analysis for each case study. RESULTS:From the 40 individuals who were invited, 28 key informants participated. A tension between 2 important values was identified for each decision (eg, solidarity vs. individualism for the AUGE/GES plan in Chile; human dignity vs. sustainability for the declaration of the right to health in Colombia). Policy-makers used values in the decisionmaking process to frame problems in meaningful ways, to guide policy development, as a pragmatic instrument to make decisions, and as a way to legitimize decisions. In Chile, values such as individualism and free choice were incorporated in decision-making because attaining private health insurance was seen as an indicator of improved personal economic status. In Colombia, human dignity was incorporated as the core value because the Constitutional Court asserted its importance in its use of judicial activism as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches. CONCLUSION:There is an opportunity to open further exploration of the role of values in different health decisions, political sectors besides health, and even other jurisdictions.

Dataset Information

Towards a stakeholders' consensus on patient payment policy: the views of health-care consumers, providers, insurers and policy makers in six Central and Eastern European countries.

Publications

Towards a stakeholders' consensus on patient payment policy: the views of health-care consumers, providers, insurers and policy makers in six Central and Eastern European countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets