Miriam Blümel

Disease Management Programs for Type 2 Diabetes in Germany: A Systematic Literature Review Evaluating Effectiveness

BACKGROUND Disease management programs (DMPs) are intended to improve the care of persons with chronic diseases. Despite numerous studies there is no unequivocal evidence about the effectiveness of DMPs in Germany. METHOD We conducted a systematic literature review in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CCMed databases. Our analysis included all controlled studies in which patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in a DMP were compared to type 2 diabetes patients receiving routine care with respect to process, outcome, and economic parameters. RESULTS The 9 studies included in the analysis were highly divergent with respect to their characteristics and the process and outcome parameters studied in each. No study had data beyond the year 2008. In 3 publications, the DMP patients had a lower mortality than the control patients (2.3%, 11.3%, and 7.17% versus 4.7%, 14.4%, and 14.72%). In 2 publications, DMP participation was found to be associated with a mean survival time of 1044.94 (± 189.87) days, as against 985.02 (± 264.68) in the control group. No consistent effect was seen with respect to morbidity, quality of life, or economic parameters. 7 publications from 5 studies revealed positive effects on process parameters for DMP participants. CONCLUSION The observed beneficial trends with respect to mortality and survival time, as well as improvements in process parameters, indicate that DMPs can, in fact, improve the care of patients with diabetes. Further evaluation is needed, because some changes in outcome parameters (an important indicator of the quality of care) may only be observable over a longer period of time.

Hospital payment based on diagnosis-related groups differs in Europe and holds lessons for the United States.

England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden spend less as a share of gross domestic product on hospital care than the United States while delivering high-quality services. All five European countries have hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) that classify patients of similar clinical characteristics and comparable costs. Inspired by Medicares inpatient prospective payment system, which originated the use of DRGs, European DRG systems have implemented different design options and are generally more detailed than Medicares system, to better distinguish among patients with less and more complex conditions. Incentives to treat more cases are often counterbalanced by volume ceilings in European DRG systems. European payments are usually broader in scope than those in the United States, including physician salaries and readmissions. These European systems, discussed in more detail in the article, suggest potential innovations for reforming DRG-based hospital payment in the United States.

Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition

Bismarcks Health Insurance Act of 1883 established the first social health insurance system in the world. The German statutory health insurance system was built on the defining principles of solidarity and self-governance, and these principles have remained at the core of its continuous development for 135 years. A gradual expansion of population and benefits coverage has led to what is, in 2017, universal health coverage with a generous benefits package. Self-governance was initially applied mainly to the payers (the sickness funds) but was extended in 1913 to cover relations between sickness funds and doctors, which in turn led to the right for insured individuals to freely choose their health-care providers. In 1993, the freedom to choose ones sickness fund was formally introduced, and reforms that encourage competition and a strengthened market orientation have gradually gained importance in the past 25 years; these reforms were designed and implemented to protect the principles of solidarity and self-governance. In 2004, self-governance was strengthened through the establishment of the Federal Joint Committee, a major payer-provider structure given the task of defining uniform rules for access to and distribution of health care, benefits coverage, coordination of care across sectors, quality, and efficiency. Under the oversight of the Federal Joint Committee, payer and provider associations have ensured good access to high-quality health care without substantial shortages or waiting times. Self-governance has, however, led to an oversupply of pharmaceutical products, an excess in the number of inpatient cases and hospital stays, and problems with delivering continuity of care across sectoral boundaries. The German health insurance system is not as cost-effective as in some of Germanys neighbouring countries, which, given present expenditure levels, indicates a need to improve efficiency and value for patients.

Public reporting on quality, waiting times and patient experience in 11 high-income countries.

This article maps current approaches to public reporting on waiting times, patient experience and aggregate measures of quality and safety in 11 high-income countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States). Using a questionnaire-based survey of key national informants, we found that the data most commonly made available to the public are on waiting times for hospital treatment, being reported for major hospitals in seven countries. Information on patient experience at hospital level is also made available in many countries, but it is not generally available in respect of primary care services. Only one of the 11 countries (England) publishes composite measures of overall quality and safety of care that allow the ranking of providers of hospital care. Similarly, the publication of information on outcomes of individual physicians remains rare. We conclude that public reporting of aggregate measures of quality and safety, as well as of outcomes of individual physicians, remain relatively uncommon. This is likely to be due to both unresolved methodological and ethical problems and concerns that public reporting may lead to unintended consequences.

Exploring Health System Responsiveness in Ambulatory Care and Disease Management and its Relation to Other Dimensions of Health System Performance (RAC) – Study Design and Methodology

BACKGROUND The responsiveness of a health system is considered to be an intrinsic goal of health systems and an essential aspect in performance assessment. Numerous studies have analysed health system responsiveness and related concepts, especially across different countries and health systems. However, fewer studies have applied the concept for the evaluation of specific healthcare delivery structures and thoroughly analysed its determinants within one country. The aims of this study are to assess the level of perceived health system responsiveness to patients with chronic diseases in ambulatory care in Germany and to analyse the determinants of health system responsiveness as well as its distribution across different population groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The target population consists of chronically ill people in Germany, with a focus on patients suffering from type 2 diabetes and/or from coronary heart disease (CHD). Data comes from two different sources: (i) cross-sectional survey data from a postal survey and (ii) claims data from a German sickness fund. Data from both sources will be linked at an individual-level. The postal survey has the purpose of measuring perceived health system responsiveness, health related quality of life, experiences with disease management programmes (DMPs) and (subjective) socioeconomic background. The claims data consists of information on (co)morbidities, service utilization, enrolment within a DMP and sociodemographic characteristics, including the type of residential area. DISCUSSION RAC is one of the first projects linking survey data on health system responsiveness at individual level with claims data. With this unique database, it will be possible to comprehensively analyse determinants of health system responsiveness and its relation to other aspects of health system performance assessment. The results of the project will allow German health system decision-makers to assess the performance of nonclinical aspects of healthcare delivery and their determinants in two important areas of health policy: in ambulatory and chronic disease care.

Selective enrollment in Disease Management Programs for coronary heart disease in Germany – An analysis based on cross-sectional survey and administrative claims data

BackgroundIn 2002, Disease Management Programs (DMPs) were introduced within the German healthcare system with the aim to increase the quality of chronic disease care. Due to the enrollment procedures, it can be assumed a) that only certain patients actively decide to enroll in a DMP and/or b) that only certain patients get the recommendation for DMP enrollment from their physician. How strong this assumed effect of self- and/or professional selection is, is still unclear.MethodsWe used data from a cross-sectional postal-survey linked on individual level with administrative claims data from a German sickness fund. The sample consisted of individuals suffering from coronary heart disease (CHD) who i) were either enrolled in the respective DMP or ii) fulfilled the disease related criteria for enrollment but were not enrolled. We applied multivariate logistic regression analyses to assess factors on patient level associated with DMP enrollment.ResultsWe included 7070 individuals in our analyses. Male sex, higher age and receiving old age pension, a higher Charlson Score and a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes increased the odds for DMP-CHD enrollment significantly. Individuals with a diagnosed myocardial infarction (MI) were also more likely to be enrolled in the DMP-CHD. We found a significant interaction effect for MI and sex, indicating that the association between MI and DMP enrollment is stronger for women than for men.ConclusionDMP-enrollees and non-enrollees differ in various factors. Studies analyzing the effectiveness of DMP-CHD should carefully take into account these group differences. Furthermore, the results suggest that the DMP-CHD assessed reaches men better than women.