Richard B. Saltman

The concept of stewardship in health policy

There is widespread agreement that both the configuration and the application of state authority in the health sector should be realigned in the interest of achieving agreed policy objectives. The desired outcome is frequently characterized as a search for good governance serving the public interest. The present paper examines the proposal in The World Health Report 2000 that the concept of stewardship offers the appropriate basis for reconfiguration. We trace the development of stewardship from its initial religious formulation to more recent ecological and sociological permutations. Consideration is given to the potential of stewardship for encouraging state decision-making that is both normatively based and economically efficient. Various dilemmas that could impede or preclude such a shift in state behaviour are examined. We conclude that the concept of stewardship holds substantial promise if adequately developed and effectively implemented.

Decentralization, re-centralization and future European health policy

A major shift appears to be underway in Europe in the relationship between national, regional, and local control over health sector decision-making. Since World War II, a central thrust of health policy has been to decentralize key dimensions of decision-making authority to increasingly lower levels of government, as well as (in Social Health Insurance systems and recently in some tax-based systems) to private sector organizations.1 This strategy, to adapt Kondratievs business-cycle framework,2 has been one of two overlapping ‘long waves’ that helped frame structural decisions in most Western European health systems. The second wave—market-influenced-entrepreneurialism—has run simultaneously with decentralization since the late 1980s. However, while this second, market-oriented wave has generated considerable controversy in some health policy circles, the concept of decentralization was readily accepted in many national policy contexts. As a result, over the second half of the 20th century, expanded decentralization of authority to regional, municipal and non-governmental control has become part of the ‘received wisdom’ about what good health policy should include. In the tax-funded health systems in Nordic countries, for example, most administrative and managerial responsibility as well as substantial political (policy) and fiscal decision-making control has been decentralized inside the public sector: from national to regional level (somatic hospitals in Norway in 1970; mental hospitals in Sweden in 1967), from regional to municipal level (elderly residential care in Sweden in 1992), and from national to municipal level (effective decision-making control over central hospitals in Finland in 1993). In the tax-funded health systems in Southern Europe, most administrative and managerial as well as many political (but not key fiscal) responsibilities were devolved from national to regional governments in Spain (to the 17 autonomous communities from 1981 to 2003), and in Italy (to 22 regional governments starting in the late 1980s). In social health insurance funded …

Regulating incentives: the past and present role of the state in health care systems

The desire of national policymakers to encourage entrepreneurial behavior in the health sector has generated not only a new structure of market-oriented incentives, but also a new regulatory role for the State. To ensure that entrepreneurial behavior will be directed toward achieving planned market objectives, the State must shift modalities from staid bureaucratic models of command-and-control to more sensitive and sophisticated systems of oversight and supervision. Available evidence suggests that this structural transformation is currently occurring in several Northern European countries. Successful implementation of that shift will require a new, intensive, and expensive strategy for human resources development, raising questions about the financial feasibility of this incentives-plus-regulation model for less-well-off CEE/CIS and developing countries.

Renovating the Commons: Swedish health care reforms in perspective.

Recent reform experience in Sweden supports the premise that key dimensions of a countrys health care system reflect the core social norms and values held by its citizenry. The fundamental structure of the Swedish health system has remained notably consistent over the past half century, that is, tax-based financing and publicly operated hospitals. Yet on other, nearly as important, parameters, there has been substantial change, for example, the persistent pursuit for thirty years of a stronger primary care framework and the effort to allow patient choice of doctor, health center, and hospital within the publicly operated system. This particular combination of continuity and change has occurred as traditional Swedish values of jamlikhet (equality) and trygghet (security) have been challenged in an environment shaped by an aging population, changing medical technology, and Swedens integration into the European Single Market. This article explores the ongoing process of health system development in Sweden in the context of the countrys broader social and cultural characteristics.

The context for health reform in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, and the United States

The success of health policy initiatives can be strongly influenced by the political, social, and cultural context within which a health care system operates. This study explores the similarities and differences in the background context of the four countries considered in this supplement: Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States. It concludes that there are considerable differences in the background context among these four countries, which help to explain their differing structural and organizational approaches to issues of pharmaceutical and home care policy.

Restructuring health systems for an era of prolonged austerity: an essay by Richard B Saltman and Zachary Cahn

Richard B Saltman and Zachary Cahn argue that efficiency savings are unlikely to enable health systems to cope with long term budget constraints and suggest that countries need to shift responsibility for substantial parts of health activity away from the public sector

Governing Public Hospitals

Acute care public hospitals are run in different ways in differently structured health systems, reflecting national circumstances. However, hospital reform and organizational realignment in most health systems typically involve three interconnected factors: (1) technological improvement in clinical and infor- mation capacity; (2) growing patient expectations regarding quality, safety, and responsiveness; and (3) political pressures on authorities to restructure command-and-control relationships. The overall debate in the health sector suggests a broad rethinking of the role of public hospitals and of the general development of governance theory.

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.

Governance, Government, and the Search for New Provider Models

A central problem in designing effective models of provider governance in health systems has been to ensure an appropriate balance between the concerns of public sector and/or government decision-makers, on the one hand, and of non-governmental health services actors in civil society and private life, on the other. In tax-funded European health systems up to the 1980s, the state and other public sector decision-makers played a dominant role over health service provision, typically operating hospitals through national or regional governments on a command-and-control basis. In a number of countries, however, this state role has started to change, with governments first stepping out of direct service provision and now de facto pushed to focus more on steering provider organizations rather than on direct public management. In this new approach to provider governance, the state has pulled back into a regulatory role that introduces market-like incentives and management structures, which then apply to both public and private sector providers alike. This article examines some of the main operational complexities in implementing this new governance reality/strategy, specifically from a service provision (as opposed to mostly a financing or even regulatory) perspective. After briefly reviewing some of the key theoretical dilemmas, the paper presents two case studies where this new approach was put into practice: primary care in Sweden and hospitals in Spain. The article concludes that good governance today needs to reflect practical operational realities if it is to have the desired effect on health sector reform outcome.

Challenges facing the United States of America in implementing universal coverage

Abstract In 2010, immediately before the United States of America (USA) implemented key features of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 18% of its residents younger than 65 years lacked health insurance. In the USA, gaps in health coverage and unhealthy lifestyles contribute to outcomes that often compare unfavourably with those observed in other high-income countries. By March 2014, the ACA had substantially changed health coverage in the USA but most of its main features – health insurance exchanges, Medicaid expansion, development of accountable care organizations and further oversight of insurance companies – remain works in progress. The ACA did not introduce the stringent spending controls found in many European health systems. It also explicitly prohibits the creation of institutes – for the assessment of the cost–effectiveness of pharmaceuticals, health services and technologies – comparable to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Haute Autorité de Santé in France or the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia. The ACA was – and remains – weakened by a lack of cross-party political consensus. The ACA’s performance and its resulting acceptability to the general public will be critical to the Act’s future.