J.J.G. Wammes

Is the role as gatekeeper still feasible? A survey among Dutch general practitioners

INTRODUCTION In the 2012 International Health Policy Survey by the Commonwealth Fund, 57% of Dutch GPs indicated that Dutch patients receive too much health care. This is an unexpected finding, given the clear gatekeeper role of Dutch GPs and recent efforts strengthening this role. OBJECTIVES The study aims to explore where perceived overuse of care prevails and to identify factors associated with too much care at the entry point of Dutch health care. METHOD An American survey exploring perceptions of the amount of care among primary care providers was modified for relevance to the Dutch health system. We further included additional factors possibly related to overuse based on 12 interviews with Dutch GPs. The survey was sent to a random sample of 600 GPs. RESULTS Dutch GPs (N = 157; response rate 26.2%) indicated that patients receive (much) too much care in general hospitals, primary care, GP cooperatives as well as private clinics. The Dutch responding GPs showed a relatively demand-satisfying attitude, which contributed to the delivery of too much care, often leading to deviation from guidelines and professional norms. The increasing availability of diagnostic facilities was identified as an additional factor contributing to the provision of unnecessary care. Finally, funding gaps between primary care and hospitals impede cooperation and coordination, provoking unnecessary care. CONCLUSION Our results--most notably regarding the demand-satisfying attitude of responding GPs--call into question the classical view of the guidance and gatekeeper role of GPs in the Dutch health care system.

Validation study of the prototype of a disease-specific index measure for health-related quality of life in dementia

BackgroundIndex measures for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) quantify the desirability (utility) of a certain health state. The commonly used generic index measure, e.g. EuroQol: EQ-5D, may underestimate relevant areas of specific diseases, resulting in lower validity. Disease-specific index measures on the other hand combine disease-specificity and quantification of perceived quality on several health domains of a certain disease into one single figure. These instruments have been developed for several diseases, but a dementia-specific HRQoL index instrument was not yet available. Facing the increasing individual and societal burden of dementia, specific HRQoL values with metric characteristics are especially useful because they will provide vital information for health outcome research and economic evaluations.Aims of the studyTo develop and validate the prototype of a dementia-specific HRQoL index measure: Dementia Quality of life Instrument (DQI), as the first step towards valuation of the dementia health state.MethodsFor development of the DQI we created a conceptual framework based on a review of the literature, qualitative interviews with people with dementia and their carers, expert opinion and team discussion. To assess validity we undertook a survey under 241 dementia professionals. Measurements consisted of ranking (1–5) and rating (1–10) of 5 dementia-specific DQI domains (memory, orientation, independence, social activities and mood) and simultaneously rating of 9 DQI-derived health states on a visual analogue scale (VAS). We also performed a cross-sectional study in a large sample of people with very mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers (N = 145) to assess feasibility and concurrent validity. In addition, caregivers valued 10 DQI and 10 EQ-5D + C derived health states of the patient simultaneously on the same VAS. Setting: outpatient clinics, nursing homes and patient residences.ResultsAll professionals judged the selected DQI domains to be relevant. Differences in ranking and rating behaviors were small. Mood was ranked (≥3.3) and rated (≥8.2) as most, orientation as least important (rank ≤2.6, value 7.5) health domain for dementia. For the validation part of this study the completion rates for all domains were above 98% for patients and 100% for caregivers on patients. A priori hypothesized DQI versus QOL-AD correlations that were significant in both patients and caregivers were: memory/memory, orientation/memory, independence/physical health, social activities/energy and mood/mood. Patient/caregiver inter-rater agreement was low (K < 0.2) for memory/independence, fair (K 0.2-0.4) for orientation/mood, and moderate (K 0.4-0.6) for social activities. Concurrent validity of the DQI with the EQ-5D + C was moderate. The fact that most of the correlations between the domains of these two instruments were low (≤0.40) showed that both instruments measure different elements of health status. As expected, modest correlations (≥0.40) were observed between corresponding domains of the two instruments.ConclusionsProfessionals judged all domains as relevant. The DQI prototype proved valid and feasible for patients and caregivers and is appropriate for very mild to moderate dementia. The differences in concurrent correlations with generic health status instruments imply that the dementia-specific DQI health domains indeed provide different information. The finding that patient HRQoL measured with the DQI was lower supports this notion. The new DQI shows comparable psychometric properties to the best available dementia-specific (QOL-AD) and generic (EQ-5D + C) measures. Further research is needed to generate values in the general population for each of the possible DQI states and to derive an algorithm that converts the 5 separate DQI domain scores into one single DQI Index score. Introducing the DQI Index will advance dementia-related HRQoL measurement by overcoming the shortcomings of generic and non-index instruments. This will allow more unequivocal interpretation of subjective dementia HRQoL states in dementia research.

Identifying and prioritizing lower value services from Dutch specialist guidelines and a comparison with the UK do-not-do list

BackgroundThe term ‘lower value services’ concerns healthcare that is of little or no value to the patient and consequently should not be provided routinely, or not be provided at all. De-adoption of lower value care may occur through explicit recommendations in clinical guidelines. The present study aimed to generate a comprehensive list of lower value services for the Netherlands that assesses the type of care and associated medical conditions. The list was compared with the NICE do-not-do list (United Kingdom). Finally, the feasibility of prioritizing the list was studied to identify conditions where de-adoption is warranted.MethodsDutch clinical guidelines (published from 2010 to 2015) were searched for lower value services. The lower value services identified were categorized by type of care (diagnostics, treatment with and without medication), type of lower value service (not routinely provided or not provided at all), and ICD10 codes (international classification of diseases). The list was prioritized per ICD10 code, based on the number of lower value services per ICD10 code, prevalence, and burden of disease.ResultsA total of 1366 lower value services were found in the 193 Dutch guidelines included in our study. Of the lower value services, 30% covered diagnostics, 29% related to surgical and medical treatment without drugs primarily, and 39% related to drug treatment. The majority (77%) of all lower value services was on care that should not be offered at all, whereas the other 23% recommended on care that should not be offered routinely. ICD10 chapters that included most lower value services were neoplasms and diseases of the nervous system. Dutch guidelines appear to contain more lower value services than UK guidelines. The prioritization processes revealed several conditions, including back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and ischemic heart diseases, where lower value services most likely occur and de-adoption is warranted.ConclusionsIn this study, a comprehensive list of lower value services for Dutch hospital care was developed. A feasible method for prioritizing lower value services was established. Identifying and prioritizing lower value services is the first of several necessary steps in reducing them.

The Relationship between the Scope of Essential Health Benefits and Statutory Financing: An International Comparison Across Eight European Countries

BACKGROUND Both rising healthcare costs and the global financial crisis have fueled a search for policy tools in order to avoid unsustainable future financing of essential health benefits. The scope of essential health benefits (the range of services covered) and depth of coverage (the proportion of costs of the covered benefits that is covered publicly) are corresponding variables in determining the benefits package. We hypothesized that a more comprehensive health benefit package may increase user cost-sharing charges. METHODS We conducted a desktop research study to assess the interrelationship between the scope of covered health benefits and the height of statutory spending in a sample of 8 European countries: Belgium, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. We conducted a targeted literature search to identify characteristics of the healthcare systems in our sample of countries. We analyzed similarities and differences based on the dimensions of publicly financed healthcare as published by the European Observatory on Health Care Systems. RESULTS We found that the scope of services is comparable and comprehensive across our sample, with only marginal differences. Cost-sharing arrangements show the most variation. In general, we found no direct interrelationship in this sample between the ranges of services covered in the health benefits package and the height of public spending on healthcare. With regard to specific services (dental care, physical therapy), we found indications of an association between coverage of services and cost-sharing arrangements. Strong variations in the volume and price of healthcare services between the 8 countries were found for services with large practice variations. CONCLUSION Although reducing the scope of the benefit package as well as increasing user charges may contribute to the financial sustainability of healthcare, variations in the volume and price of care seem to have a much larger impact on financial sustainability. Policy-makers should focus on a variety of measures within an integrated approach. There is no silver bullet for addressing the sustainability of healthcare.

Sustainability of Long-term Care: Puzzling Tasks Ahead for Policy-Makers

Background: The sustainability of long-term care (LTC) is a prominent policy priority in many Western countries. LTC is one of the most pressing fiscal issues for the growing population of elderly people in the European Union (EU) Member States. Country recommendations regarding LTC are prominent under the EU’s European Semester. Methods: This paper examines challenges related to the financial- and organizational sustainability of LTC systems in the EU. We combined a targeted literature review and a descriptive selected country analysis of: (1) public- and private funding; (2) informal care and externalities; and (3) the possible role of technology in increasing productivity. Countries were selected via purposive sampling to establish a cohort of country cases covering the spectrum of differences in LTC systems: public spending, private funding, informal care use, informal care support, and cash benefits. Results: The aging of the population, the increasing gap between availability of informal care and demand for LTC, substantial market failures of private funding for LTC, and fiscal imbalances in some countries, have led to structural reforms and enduring pressures for LTC policy-makers across the EU. Our exploration of national policies illustrates different solutions that attempt to promote fairness while stimulating efficient delivery of services. Important steps must be taken to address the sustainability of LTC. First, countries should look deeper into the possibilities of complementing public- and private funding, as well as at addressing market failures of private funding. Second, informal care externalities with spill-over into neighboring policy areas, the labor force, and formal LTC workers, should be properly addressed. Thirdly, innovations in LTC services should be stimulated to increase productivity through technology and process innovations, and to reduce costs. Conclusion: The analysis shows why it is difficult for EU Member State governments to meet all their goals for sustainable LTC, given the demographic- and fiscal circumstances, and the complexities of LTC systems. It also shows the usefulness to learn from policy design and implementation of LTC policy in other countries, within and outside the EU. Researchers can contribute by studying conditions, under which the strategies explored might deliver solutions for policy-makers.

Characteristics and healthcare utilisation patterns of high-cost beneficiaries in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional claims database study

Objective To determine medical needs, demographic characteristics and healthcare utilisation patterns of the top 1% and top 2%–5% high-cost beneficiaries in the Netherlands. Design Cross-sectional study using 1 year claims data. We broke down high-cost beneficiaries by demographics, the most cost-incurring condition per beneficiary and expensive treatment use. Setting Dutch curative health system, a health system with universal coverage. Participants 4.5 million beneficiaries of one health insurer. Measures Annual total costs through hospital, intensive care unit use, expensive drugs, other pharmaceuticals, mental care and others; demographics; most cost-incurring and secondary conditions; inpatient stay; number of morbidities; costs per ICD10-chapter (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th revision); and expensive treatment use (including dialysis, transplant surgery, expensive drugs, intensive care unit and diagnosis-related groups >€30 000). Results The top 1% and top 2%–5% beneficiaries accounted for 23% and 26% of total expenditures, respectively. Among top 1% beneficiaries, hospital care represented 76% of spending, of which, respectively, 9.0% and 9.1% were spent on expensive drugs and ICU care. We found that 54% of top 1% beneficiaries were aged 65 years or younger and that average costs sharply decreased with higher age within the top 1% group. Expensive treatments contributed to high costs in one-third of top 1% beneficiaries and in less than 10% of top 2%–5% beneficiaries. The average number of conditions was 5.5 and 4.0 for top 1% and top 2%–5% beneficiaries, respectively. 53% of top 1% beneficiaries were treated for circulatory disorders but for only 22% of top 1% beneficiaries this was their most cost-incurring condition. Conclusions Expensive treatments, most cost-incurring condition and age proved to be informative variables for studying this heterogeneous population. Expensive treatments play a substantial role in high-costs beneficiaries. Interventions need to be aimed at beneficiaries of all ages; a sole focus on the elderly would leave many high-cost beneficiaries unaddressed. Tailored interventions are needed to meet the needs of high-cost beneficiaries and to avoid waste of scarce resources.

Systematic review of high-cost patients’ characteristics and healthcare utilisation

Objectives To investigate the characteristics and healthcare utilisation of high-cost patients and to compare high-cost patients across payers and countries. Design Systematic review. Data sources PubMed and Embase databases were searched until 30 October 2017. Eligibility criteria and outcomes Our final search was built on three themes: ‘high-cost’, ‘patients’, and ‘cost’ and ‘cost analysis’. We included articles that reported characteristics and utilisation of the top-X% (eg, top-5% and top-10%) patients of costs of a given population. Analyses were limited to studies that covered a broad range of services, across the continuum of care. Andersen’s behavioural model was used to categorise characteristics and determinants into predisposing, enabling and need characteristics. Results The studies pointed to a high prevalence of multiple (chronic) conditions to explain high-cost patients’ utilisation. Besides, we found a high prevalence of mental illness across all studies and a prevalence higher than 30% in US Medicaid and total population studies. Furthermore, we found that high costs were associated with increasing age but that still more than halve of high-cost patients were younger than 65 years. High costs were associated with higher incomes in the USA but with lower incomes elsewhere. Preventable spending was estimated at maximally 10% of spending. The top-10%, top-5% and top-1% high-cost patients accounted for respectively 68%, 55% and 24% of costs within a given year. Spending persistency varied between 24% and 48%. Finally, we found that no more than 30% of high-cost patients are in their last year of life. Conclusions High-cost patients make up the sickest and most complex populations, and their high utilisation is primarily explained by high levels of chronic and mental illness. High-cost patients are diverse populations and vary across payer types and countries. Tailored interventions are needed to meet the needs of high-cost patients and to avoid waste of scarce resources.

Stewardship of primary care physicians to contain cost in health care: an international cross-sectional survey

Purpose Physician stewardship towards cost control is potentially important in enhancing the financial sustainability of health care systems. Objective Aim of this study was to identify the level of stewardship of cost containment of primary care physicians (PCPs) and to assess the associations between stewardship and characteristics of PCPs and health care systems. Methods Secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey among 10 countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA. Participants were a random sample of 33312 PCPs with 11547 responses (34.7%). Outcome measure was a stewardship scale addressing cost-awareness and cost-consideration. Results Across countries, 41.6% and 45.7% of the PCPs responded that they often were aware of treatment costs and considered cost, respectively. Female PCPs were less aware of costs (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.69-0.81) and considered costs less frequently in making treatment decisions (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.76-0.89). Older PCPs were more aware of the costs than younger PCPs for all age categories compared to those <35 years (P < 0.001). PCPs older than 65 years (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.54-0.78) and 55-64 years (OR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.73-0.97) were less likely to consider costs than the youngest age group. Cost-consideration of PCPs residing in countries with a single payer system was lower (OR: 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.95) than their colleagues in multiple payer systems. Conclusion PCPs show moderate stewardship of health care resources with large intercountry differences. Cost-awareness may not be a necessary precondition for cost-consideration, and policies aimed at raising cost-consideration may be more important.