Demand-driven care and hospital choice. Dutch health policy toward demand-driven care: results from a survey into hospital choice

Determinants of citizens' choice between public and private hospitals

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses what factors determine citizens' preferences for a public or private hospital (assuming the choice is free of charge) according to the severity of the disease.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A web-based discrete choice experiment was carried out with 1777 individuals distinguishing between a control group (posed with a simple choice for each health condition) and added information for respondents of the treatment groups (distance, waiting time, advice from the family doctor, and recommendations from the social context). The relevance of these factors in relation to the severity of one's illness is investigated. The outcome variable is the choice of a public versus a private hospital for the treatment of a health issue of a different severity.

RESULTS

The severity of the health issue has a moderator effect on the additional information for the treatment groups. Waiting time has a direct positive impact on the patient's preferred choice for a private hospital both for severe and non-severe health issues. Distance to the hospital and the family doctor's recommendation positively impact the preferred choice for a private hospital for non-severe health issues but not for severe health issues. Covariates like gender and age are not relevant in explaining the effects of the treatments, and educational level has a positive impact on one of the treatments: advice from the patient's environment. Satisfaction with public hospitals has a positive impact on all treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that waiting time is a key factor in choosing a private hospital against the majority-stated preference for a public hospital.

Assessing the impact of patient-involvement healthcare strategies on patients, providers, and the healthcare system: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement has become an important and lively field of research, yet existing findings are fragmented and often contested. Without a synthesis of the research field, these findings are of limited use to scholars, healthcare providers, or policy-makers.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the body of knowledge on patient involvement to determine what is known, contested, and unknown about benefits, risks, and effective implementation strategies.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Patients were not involved.

METHODS

Systematic literature review of 99 journal articles using a conceptual model integrating three levels: health systems, health providers, and patients. We extracted individual research findings and organized them into the structure of our model to provide a holistic picture of patient involvement.

RESULTS

The review highlights overlaps and conflicts between various patient involvement approaches. Our results show benefits for individual patients and the health system as a whole. At the provider level, however, we identified clear barriers to patient involvement.

DISCUSSION

Patient involvement requires collaboration among health systems, healthcare providers, and patients. We showed that increasing patient responsibility and health literacy requires policy-maker interventions. This includes incentives for patient education by providers, adapting medical education curricula, and building a database of reliable health information and decision support for patients. Furthermore, policies supporting a common infrastructure for digital health data and managed patient data exchange will foster provider collaboration.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Our review shows how an approach integrating health systems, healthcare providers, and patients can make patient involvement more effective than isolated interventions. Such systematic patient involvement is likely to improve population health literacy and healthcare quality.

Perspective of potential patients on the hospital volume-outcome relationship and the minimum volume threshold for total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative focus group and interview study

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is performed to treat end-stage knee osteoarthritis. In Germany, a minimum volume threshold of 50 TKAs/hospital/year was implemented to ensure outcome quality. This study, embedded within a systematic review, aimed to investigate the perspectives of potential TKA patients on the hospital volume-outcome relationship for TKA (higher volumes associated with better outcomes).

METHODS

A convenience sample of adults with knee problems and heterogeneous demographic characteristics participated in the study. Qualitative data were collected during a focus group prior to the systematic review (n = 5) and during telephone interviews, in which preliminary results of the systematic review were discussed (n = 16). The data were synthesised using content analysis.

RESULTS

All participants (n = 21) believed that a hospital volume-outcome relationship exists for TKA while recognising that patient behaviour or the surgeon could also influence outcomes. All participants would be willing to travel longer for better outcomes. Most interviewees would choose a hospital for TKA depending on reputation, recommendations, and service quality. However, some would also choose a hospital based on the results of the systematic review that showed slightly lower mortality/revision rates at higher-volume hospitals. Half of the interviewees supported raising the minimum volume threshold even if this were to increase travel time to receive TKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential patients believe that a hospital volume-outcome relationship exists for TKA. Hospital preference is based mainly on subjective factors, although some potential patients would consider scientific evidence when making their choice. Policy makers and physicians should consider the patient perspectives when deciding on minimum volume thresholds or recommending hospitals for TKA, respectively.

Public reporting of hospital quality data: What do referring physicians want to know?

OBJECTIVE

To identify ambulatory care physicians' priorities for hospital quality criteria to support them in counselling patients what hospital to choose.

METHODS

Three hundred non-hospital-based stratified randomly sampled physicians, representing the five main referring specialties in Germany participated in a cross-sectional survey. Physicians rated the importance of 80 hospital quality criteria to be used in their counselling of patients in need of hospital care. Criteria selection was based on a literature analysis and the content of Germany's mandatory hospital quality reports. We calculated the most important criteria and performed an ordinal regression analysis to examine whether the physicians' characteristics 'age', 'sex', 'specialty', 'practice type' and 'region' affected physicians' importance ratings.

RESULTS

To counsel patients in need of a hospital referral, physicians preferred hospital quality criteria that reflect their own and their patients' experiences with a hospital. Additionally, hospitals' expertise and results of treatment were rated highly important. In contrast, hospitals' structural characteristics and compliance with external requirements were rated less important. Physicians' characteristics affected importance ratings only negligibly.

CONCLUSIONS

To support referring physicians' counselling of patients regarding what hospital to choose in order to achieve optimal patient outcomes eventually, hospital report cards must be enriched by information on physicians' and their patients' experiences with hospitals. Hospitals' structural characteristics play a minor role in counselling of patients needing hospital care.

Do German public reporting websites provide information that office-based physicians consider before referring patients to hospital? A four-step analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, many different performance frameworks and quality assurance systems have been developed to measure health care quality. In Germany, an external quality assurance system for hospitals was introduced in 2005. The data of these systems are often reported by public reporting websites (PRWs) to inform patients and other stakeholders interested in health care systems about health care providers' quality. However, publication is obligatory (at least in Germany) for most of the existing quality assurance measures; some may be reported voluntarily. An important target group for this information is the group of all office-based physicians as they are crucial for patients' hospital choice. However, public reporting initiatives in Germany and other countries have not increased the use of quality reports for hospital choice.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To summarize the criteria that office-based physicians consider to be of high, medium, and low importance for hospital selection when referring patients and (2) to examine whether German public reporting websites (PRWs) provide these hospital-related criteria.

METHODS

The analysis comprised four steps: 1) Five databases were systematically searched for peer-reviewed English- and German-language literature. 2) The selection of articles was based on compliance with inclusion criteria, and all the criteria relevant to the referral of patients to hospital were extracted. 3) The criteria were then divided into five main categories: structural quality, process quality, outcome quality, patient experience, and referring physicians' experience. In addition, the criteria were classified into three importance categories (high-, medium-, and low-priority criteria) according to their relevance to the referral decision. 4) We investigated whether German PRWs publicly report high-priority criteria.

RESULTS

A total of N=11 articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. The studies were published in Germany (n=4), the Netherlands (n=3), Denmark, France, Norway, and the USA (n=1 each). In total, N=86 criteria were identified, most of them relating to structural quality (n=43) and process quality (n=26). We found just n=3 outcome quality criteria, only one of which fell in the high-priority category (breast cancer indicators with clinically relevant differences). In total, n=25 low-, n=40 medium-, and n=34 high-priority criteria could be established, which is due to the fact that some criteria had been investigated in several studies evaluating the importance of some criteria differently. Most of the high-priority criteria were related to process quality. All the high-priority structural quality criteria and high-priority outcome quality criteria were available on German PRWs, whereas just 38.5 % of those relating to process quality could be identified on these portals. We also identified 66.7 % of the high-priority criteria regarding patient experience and 50.0 % concerning the referring physicians' experience. Overall, a larger amount of low- and medium-priority criteria are available on German PRWs than high-priority criteria.

DISCUSSION

A substantial amount of hospital information regarding structural quality and outcome quality is available on German PRWs. However, the development of further process quality criteria (which are currently underrepresented) should be considered, for example whether hospital physicians continue the medication initiated by office-based doctors. Also, hospital quality reports should be tailored for specific user groups, for instance for referring gynecologists or referring general practitioners (GPs).

Public performance reporting and hospital choice: a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing cancer surgery in the Australian private healthcare sector

OBJECTIVES

National mandatory public performance reporting (PPR) for Australian public hospitals, including measures of cancer surgery waiting times, was introduced in 2011. PPR is voluntary for private hospitals. The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data is used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer when selecting a hospital for elective surgery and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs.

DESIGN

A national cross-sectional postal questionnaire.

SETTING

Australian private healthcare sector.

PARTICIPANTS

Private patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital for elective surgery (n=243) in 2016.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients' choice of hospital, use of PPR information and preferred areas of PPR information. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-eight respondents (94%) attended a private hospital. Almost half could choose a hospital. Choice of hospital was not influenced by PPR data (92% unaware) but by their specialist (90%). Respondents considered PPR to be important (71%) but they did not want to see the information, preferring their general practitioners (GPs) to tell them about it (40%). Respondents considered surgery costs (59%), complications (58%) and recovery success rates (57%) to be important areas of information that should be publicly reported. Almost half suggested that quality indicators should be reported at the individual clinician level. Analysis of the open-ended questions identified four themes: (1) decision-making factors; (2) data credibility; (3) unmet information needs and (4) unintended consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

PPR of hospital data had no substantial impact on patients' choice of hospital. Nonetheless, many respondents expressed interest in using it in future. To increase PPR awareness and usability, personalised and integrated information on cost and quality of hospitals is required. Dissemination of PPR information via specialists and GPs could assist patients to interpret the data and support decision-making.

Hospital choice in Germany from the patient's perspective: a cross-sectional study

Background

In many countries health policy encourages patients to choose their hospital, preferably by considering information of performance reports. Previous studies on hospital choice mainly have focused on patients undergoing elective surgery. This study examined a representative sample of hospital inpatients across disciplines and treatment interventions in Germany. Its research questions were: How many patients decide where to go for hospital treatment? How much time do patients have before admission? Which sources of information do they use, and which criteria are relevant to their decision?

Methods

Cross-sectional observational study covering 1925 inpatients of 46 departments at 17 hospitals in 2012. The stratified survey comprised 11 medical disciplines (internal medicine, gynaecology, obstetrics, paediatrics, psychiatry, orthopaedics, neurology, urology, ENT and geriatrics) on 3 hospital care levels representing 91.9% of all hospital admissions to inpatient care in Germany in 2012. The statistical analysis calculated the frequency distributions and 95% confidence intervals of characteristics related to the hospital choice.

Results

63.0% [60.9–65.2] of patients in Germany chose the hospital themselves, but only 21.1% [19.3–22.9] had more than one week to decide prior to admission. Major sources of information were personal knowledge of hospitals, relatives, outpatient health professionals and the Internet. Main criteria for the decision were personal experience with a hospital, recommendations from relatives and providers of outpatient services, a hospital’s reputation and distance from home. Specific quality information as provided by performance reports were of secondary importance.

Conclusions

A majority of patients in the German health system choose their hospital freely. Providers of outpatient health care can have an important “agent” function in the quality-oriented hospital choice especially for patients with little time prior to admission and those who do not decide themselves. Hospitals have an impact on patients’ future hospital choices by the treatment experience they provide to patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2712-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multilevel Modeling and Policy Development: Guidelines and Applications to Medical Travel

Medical travel has expanded rapidly in recent years, resulting in new markets and increased access to medical care. Whereas several studies investigated the motives of individuals seeking healthcare abroad, the conventional analytical approach is limited by substantial caveats. Classical techniques as found in the literature cannot provide sufficient insight due to the nested nature of data generated. The application of adequate analytical techniques, specifically multilevel modeling, is scarce to non-existent in the context of medical travel. This study introduces the guidelines for application of multilevel techniques in public health research by presenting an application of multilevel modeling in analyzing the decision-making patterns of potential medical travelers. Benefits and potential limitations are discussed.

Patients' expectations of variation in quality of care relates to their search for comparative performance information

Background

Choice of hospital based on comparative performance information (CPI) was introduced for Dutch healthcare consumers at least 5 years ago, but CPI use has not yet become commonplace. Our aim was to assess the role of patients’ expectations regarding variation in the quality of hospital care in determining whether they search for CPI.

Methods

A questionnaire (for a cross-sectional survey) was distributed to 475 orthopaedic patients in a consecutive sample, who underwent primary hip or knee replacement in a university, teaching, or community hospital between September 2009 and July 2010.

Results

Of the 302 patients (63%) who responded, 13% reported searching for CPI to help them choose a hospital. People who expected quality differences between hospitals (67%) were more likely to search for CPI (OR =3.18 [95% CI: 1.02–9.89]; p <0.04) than those who did not. Quality differences were most often expected in hospital reputation, distance, and accessibility. Patients who did not search for CPI stated that they felt no need for this type of information.

Conclusion

Patients’ expectations regarding variation in quality of care are positively related to their reported search for CPI. To increase the relevance of CPI for patients, future studies should explore the underlying reasoning of patients about meaningful quality-of-care variation between hospitals.

"Managed competition" for Ireland? The single versus multiple payer debate

BACKGROUND

A persistent feature of international health policy debate is whether a single-payer or multiple-payer system can offer superior performance. In Ireland, a major reform proposal is the introduction of 'managed competition' based on the recent reforms in the Netherlands, which would replace many functions of Ireland's public payer with a system of competing health insurers from 2016. This article debates whether Ireland meets the preconditions for effective managed competition, and whether the government should implement the reform according to its stated timeline. We support our arguments by discussing the functioning of the Dutch and Irish systems.

DISCUSSION

Although Ireland currently lacks key preconditions for effective implementation, the Dutch experience demonstrates that some of these can be implemented over time, such as a more rigorous risk equalization system. A fundamental problem may be Ireland's sparse hospital distribution. This may increase the market power of hospitals and weaken insurers' ability to exclude inefficient or poor quality hospitals from contracts, leading to unwarranted spending growth. To mitigate this, the government proposes to introduce a system of price caps for hospital services.The Dutch system of competition is still in transition and it is premature to judge its success. The new system may have catalyzed increased transparency regarding clinical performance, but outcome measurement remains crude. A multi-payer environment creates some disincentives for quality improvement, one of which is free-riding by insurers on their rivals' quality investments. If a Dutch insurer invests in improving hospital quality, hospitals will probably offer equivalent quality to consumers enrolled with other insurance companies. This enhances equity, but may weaken incentives for improvement. Consequently the Irish government, rather than insurers, may need to assume responsibility for investing in clinical quality. Plans are in place to assure consumers of free choice of insurer, but a key concern is a potential shortfall of institutional capacity to regulate managed competition.

SUMMARY

Managed competition requires a long transition period and the requisite preconditions are not yet in place. The Irish government should refrain from introducing managed competition until sufficient preconditions are in place to allow effective performance.

The use of publicly available quality information when choosing a hospital or health-care provider: the role of the GP

BACKGROUND

Patients barely use publicly available quality information for making a decision concerning secondary health care, but instead rely on information coming from their general practitioner (GP). An intermediate role of GPs has been suggested concerning the use of publicly available quality information. The aim of the study is to quantify and explore GPs' use of publicly available quality information when referring patients or suggesting secondary health-care provider to them.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, an invitation to an electronic questionnaire was sent to 858 GPs in the south of the Netherlands. GPs were asked about their use of and perception towards publicly available quality information through closed-ended and open-ended questions. Differences among subgroups were tested for significance using Pearson's chi-square tests.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents (89.5%) never or rarely use publicly available quality information. They perceive them as invalid and unreliable. Distance to the hospital, prior experiences and personal contacts with specialists guide them when advising and referring. Almost 90% of respondents never or rarely suggest quality information as support for decision making to their patients. No significant differences between subgroups were observed.

CONCLUSION

This study is among the firsts exploring and quantifying GPs' use of publicly available quality information. The results suggest that publicly available quality information appears in its current format and application not useful for GPs. GPs have to be aware of their influential role in patients' decision making and possibly have to take more responsibility in guiding them through the jungle of quality information.

Are patients' preferences regarding the place of treatment heard and addressed at the point of referral: an exploratory study based on observations of GP-patient consultations

Background

Today, in several north-western European countries, patients are encouraged to choose, actively, a healthcare provider. However, patients often visit the provider that is recommended by their general practitioner (GP). The introduction of patient choice requires GPs to support patients to be involved, actively, in the choice of a healthcare provider. We aim to investigate whether policy on patient choice is reflected in practice, i.e. what the role of the patient is in their choices of healthcare providers at the point of referral and to what extent GPs’ and patients’ healthcare paths influence the role that patients play in the referral decision.

Methods

In 2007–2008, we videotaped Dutch GP-patient consultations. For this study, we selected, at random, 72 videotaped consultations between 72 patients and 39 GPs in which the patient was referred to a healthcare provider. These were analysed using an observation protocol developed by the researchers.

Results

The majority of the patients had little or no input into the choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. Their GPs did not support them in actively choosing a provider and the patients often agreed with the provider that the GP proposed. Patients who were referred for diagnostic purposes seem to have had even less input into their choice of a provider than patients who were referred for treatment.

Conclusions

We found that the GP chooses a healthcare provider on behalf of the patient in most consultations, even though policy on patient choice expects from patients that they choose, actively, a provider. On the one hand, this could indicate that the policy needs adjustments. On the other hand, adjustments may be needed to practice. For instance, GPs could help patients to make an active choice of provider. However, certain patients prefer to let their GP decide as their agent. Even then, GPs need to know patients’ preferences, because in a principal-agent relationship, it is necessary that the agent is fully informed about the principal’s preferences.

The effect of the proximity of patients' nearest alternative hospital on their intention to search for information on hospital quality

OBJECTIVE

In several countries, patients are encouraged to choose health care providers. Simultaneously, there is a tendency towards the concentration of health care, which might lessen the choice. Our aim was to assess the impact of patients' distances from their providers on their information-seeking, which is one element of choice.

METHODS

Two thousand members of the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel were sent a questionnaire that included a question on whether they would search for information about hospitals to inform their choice. Distances from providers were obtained from a database that includes the distances between all postcodes in the Netherlands. To assess the influence of distance on information-seeking, logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

There was a good response (75%). Older, less educated respondents were less inclined to seek information when their nearest alternative was located further away (OR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.79-0.92), and younger, more educated respondents were more inclined to search in this situation (OR 1.11; 95% CI: 1.01-1.22).

CONCLUSIONS

As fewer older, less educated patients would search for information to guide their choice, they might not opt for the best hospital. Additionally, the need for providers to compete for the patronage of these patients might be lessened.

The use of quality information by general practitioners: does it alter choices? A randomized clustered study

BACKGROUND

Following the introduction of elements of managed competition in the Netherlands in 2006, General Practitioners (GPs) and patients were given the role to select treatment hospital using public quality information. In this study we investigate to what extent hospital preferences of GP's are affected by performance indicators on medical effectiveness and patient experiences. We selected three conditions: breast cancer, cataract surgery, and hip and knee replacement.

METHODS

After an inquiry 26 out of 226 GPs in the region signed up to participate in our study. After a 2:1 randomization, we analyzed the referral patterns in the region using three groups of GPs: GPs (n=17) who used the report cards and received personal clarification, GPs that signed up for the study but were assigned to the control group (n=9), and the GPs outside the study (n=200).We conducted a difference in differences analysis where the choice for a particular hospital was the dependent variable and time (2009 or 2010), the sum score of the CQI, the sum score of the PI's and dummy variables for the individual hospitals were used as independent variables.

RESULTS

The analysis of the conditions together and cataract surgery and hip and knee replacement separately, showed no significant relationships between the scores on the report cards and the referral patterns of the GPs. For breast cancer our analysis revealed that GPs in the intervention group refer 1.0% (p=0.01) more to hospitals that score one percent point better on the indicators for medical effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides empirical evidence that GP referral patterns were unaffected by the available quality information, except for the outcome indicators for breast cancer care that were presented. This finding was surprising since our study was designed to identify changes in hospital preference (1) amongst the most motivated GP's, (2) that received personal clarification of the performance indicators, and (3) selected indicators/conditions from a large set of indicators that they believed were most important. This finding may differ when quality information is based on outcome indicators with a clinically relevant difference, as shown by our indicators for breast cancer treatment. We believe that the current set of (largely process) hospital quality indicators do not serve the GP's information needs and consequently quality plays little role in the selection of hospitals for treatment.

Patient mobility for cardiac problems: a risk-adjusted analysis in Italy

Background

The Italian National Health System was revised in the last 20 years, introducing new elements such as efficacy, efficiency and competitiveness. Devolution to regional authorities has created a quasi-market system where patients can choose the hospital in which to be treated. Patient mobility therefore becomes an indicator of perceived hospital quality and of financial flows between the regions of Italy. Previous studies analyzed patient mobility in general or by specific disease/diagnosis-related groups but there is a lack of research on the influence of severity of patient condition. The aim of the study was to describe patient mobility, crude and stratified by disease severity, in cardiac surgery units of three health areas (HAs) in Tuscany (Italy).

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, data was gathered from hospital discharge records obtained from the Tuscan Regional Health Agency, Italy. The three HAs (HA1, HA2, HA3) recorded 25,017 planned hospitalizations in cardiac surgery units in the period 2001–2007. Patients were stratified in four All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group (APR-DRG) severity levels. Gandy’s nomogram was used to describe how HAs met health care demand and their capacity to attract patients. Cuzick’s test was used to identify significant differences in time trends.

Results

Raw data showed that the HAs met their own local health care demand. Stratifying by APR-DRG severity, it emerged that capacity to meet local demand remained unchanged for zero-to-minor severity levels, but one HA was less able to meet demand for moderate severity levels or to attract patients from other HAs and Regions of Italy. In fact, HA3 showed a decrease in admissions of local residents.

Conclusions

The study highlights important differences between the three HAs that were only revealed by severity stratification: unlike HA3, HA1 and HA2 seemed able to deal with local demand, even after severity stratification. Planners and researchers can benefit from risk stratification data, which provides more elements for correct comparisons and interventions. In the context of patient mobility, the present study is a step in that direction.

Free choice of healthcare providers in the Netherlands is both a goal in itself and a precondition: modelling the policy assumptions underlying the promotion of patient choice through documentary analysis and interviews

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands in 2006, a health insurance system reform took place in which regulated competition between insurers and providers is key. In this context, the government placed greater emphasis on patients being able to choose health insurers and providers as a precondition for competition. Patient choice became an instrument instead of solely a goal in itself. In the current study, we investigated the concept of 'patient choice' of healthcare providers, as postulated in the supporting documentation for this reform, because we wanted to try to understand the assumptions policy makers had regarding patient choice of healthcare providers.

METHODS

We searched policy documents for assumptions made by policy makers about patient choice of healthcare providers that underlie the health insurance system reform. Additionally, we held interviews with people who were involved in or closely followed the reform.

RESULTS

Our study shows that the government paid much more attention to the instrumental goal of patient choice. Patients are assumed to be able to choose a provider rationally if a number of conditions are satisfied, e.g. the availability of enough comparative information. To help ensure those conditions were met, the Dutch government and other parties implemented a variety of supporting instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

Various instruments have been put in place to ensure that patients can act as consumers on the healthcare market. Much less attention has been paid to the willingness and ability of patients to choose, i.e. choice as a value. There was also relatively little attention paid to the consequences on equity of outcomes if some patient groups are less inclined or able to choose actively.

Determinants of patient choice of healthcare providers: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

In several northwest European countries, a demand-driven healthcare system has been implemented that stresses the importance of patient healthcare provider choice. In this study, we are conducting a scoping review aiming to map out what is known about the determinants of patient choice of a wide range of healthcare providers. As far as we know, not many studies are currently available that attempt to draw a general picture of how patients choose a healthcare provider and of the status of research on this subject. This study is therefore a valuable contribution to the growing amount of literature about patient choice.

METHODS

We carried out a specific type of literature review known as a scoping review. Scoping reviews try to examine the breadth of knowledge that is available about a particular topic and therefore do not make selections or apply quality constraints. Firstly, we defined our research questions and searched the literature in Embase, Medline and PubMed. Secondly, we selected the literature, and finally we analysed and summarized the information.

RESULTS

Our review shows that patients' choices are determined by a complex interplay between patient and provider characteristics. A variety of patient characteristics determines whether patients make choices, are willing and able to choose, and how they choose. Patients take account of a variety of structural, process and outcome characteristics of providers, differing in the relative importance they attach to these characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no such thing as the typical patient: different patients make different choices in different situations. Comparative information seems to have a relatively limited influence on the choices made by many patients and patients base their decisions on a variety of provider characteristics instead of solely on outcome characteristics. The assumptions made in health policy about patient choice may therefore be an oversimplification of reality. Several knowledge gaps were identified that need follow-up research.

Communicating quality of care information to physicians: a study of eight presentation formats

OBJECTIVE

Non-hospital based physicians usually counsel their patients which hospital to choose. Our aim was to determine which formats for presenting quality of care data are preferred by physicians.

METHODS

300 randomly recruited non-hospital based physicians participated in a survey. We created eight presentation formats which varied in terms of information aggregation and usage of evaluative cues. Participants rated clarity, comprehensibility, information content, acceptance, and preference of the presentation formats. Additionally, we tested physicians' comprehension of the formats.

RESULTS

Physicians' ratings of the formats differed significantly (p<0.001). Formats combining numeric information and evaluative cues performed best in terms of information content, comprehensibility and preference. Comprehension of presentation formats also differed (p<0.001). Even though physicians' accuracy of interpreting "Simple Star Rating" was best a majority of participants accepted only formats that contained detailed numerical information (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In order to support physicians' use of quality of care information in counseling patients, report cards should depict indicator values in a format that combines actual indicator values with evaluative cues.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

If authors of comparative hospital quality reports apply the results of our study in designing reports, the results may increase physicians' use of comparative performance reports in their counseling of patients.

Switching health insurance plans: results from a health survey

The study is designed to provide an informal summary of what is known about consumer switching of health insurance plans and to contribute to knowledge about what motivates consumers who choose to switch health plans. Do consumers switch plans largely on the basis of critical reflection and assessment of information about the quality, and price? The literature suggests that switching is complicated, not always possible, and often overwhelming to consumers. Price does not always determine choice. Quality is very hard for consumers to understand. Results from a random sample survey (n = 2791) of the Alkmaar region of the Netherlands are reported here. They suggest that rather than embracing the opportunity to be active critical consumers, individuals are more likely to avoid this role by handing this activity off to a group purchasing organization. There is little evidence that consumers switch plans on the basis of critical reflection and assessment of information about quality and price. The new data reported here confirm the importance of a group purchasing organizations. In a free-market-health insurance system confidence in purchasing groups may be more important for health insurance choice than health informatics. This is not what policy makers expected and might result a less efficient health insurance market system.

The doctor and the market: about the influence of market reforms on the professional medical ethics of surgeons and general practitioners in the Netherlands

To explore whether market reforms in a health care system affect medical professional ethics of hospital-based specialists on the one hand and physicians in independent practices on the other. Qualitative interviews with 27 surgeons and 28 general practitioners in The Netherlands, held 2-3 years after a major overhaul of the Dutch health care system involving several market reforms. Surgeons now regularly advertise their work (while this was forbidden in the past) and pay more attention to patients with relatively minor afflictions, thus deviating from codes of ethics that oblige physicians to treat each other as brothers and to treat patients according to medical need. Dutch GPs have abandoned their traditional reticence and their fear of medicalization. They now seem to treat more in accordance with patients' preferences and less in accordance with medical need. Market reforms do affect medical professional principles, and it is doubtful whether these changes were intended when Dutch policy makers decided to introduce market elements in the health care system. Policy makers in other countries considering similar reforms should pay attention to these results.

Different patient subgroup, different ranking? Which quality indicators do patients find important when choosing a hospital for hip- or knee arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Patients are increasingly expected to become active, critical consumers in healthcare. They can use comparative healthcare information presented on websites to make informed choices for healthcare providers. However, the use of this information has been limited so far. An obstacle can be that the information is not perceived as relevant by patients. Presenting only the most important quality indicators might improve the usefulness of this information. The aim of this study was to explore which quality indicators different subgroups of patients find important when choosing a hospital for total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

In this explorative, cross-sectional study, questionnaires were distributed to 265 patients who underwent or had to undergo THA/TKA. Participants were asked to rank the importance of three types of quality indicators: patient experience indicators, clinical performance indicators, and indicators about hospital services. We used random effects regression analyses to assess the relative importance of the indicators in different subgroups of patients.

RESULTS

110 patients (response rate 41.5%) who underwent or had to undergo THA/TKA participated. Conduct of doctors, the presence of procedures to prevent adverse effects of thrombosis and information about the specialist area of orthopaedists were the most important patient experience indicator, clinical performance indicator and indicator about hospital services, respectively. We found a few differences between patient subgroups in the importance attached to the quality indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a first insight into which quality indicators patients find important when choosing a hospital for THA/TKA, and shows that subgroups of patients differ in the value they attach to these indicators. More extended research is needed to establish the indicators that should at least be presented in succinct overviews of comparative healthcare information for patients choosing a hospital for THA/TKA.

An international comparison of web-based reporting about health care quality: content analysis

Background

On more and more websites, consumers are provided with public reports about health care. This move toward provision of more comparative information has resulted in different information types being published that often contain contradictory information.

Objective

The objective was to assess the current state of the art in the presentation of online comparative health care information and to compare how the integration of different information types is dealt with on websites. The content analysis was performed in order to provide website managers and Internet researchers with a resource of knowledge about presentation formats being applied internationally.

Methods

A Web search was used to identify websites that contained comparative health care information. The websites were systematically examined to assess how three different types of information (provider characteristics and services, performance indicators, and health care user experience) were presented to consumers. Furthermore, a short survey was disseminated to the reviewed websites to assess how the presentation formats were selected.

Results

We reviewed 42 websites from the following countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Sweden. We found the most common ways to integrate different information types were the two extreme options: no integration at all (on 36% of the websites) and high levels of integration in single tables on 41% of the websites). Nearly 70% of the websites offered drill down paths to more detailed information. Diverse presentation approaches were used to display comparative health care information on the Internet. Numbers were used on the majority of websites (88%) to display comparative information.

Conclusions

Currently, approaches to the presentation of comparative health care information do not seem to be systematically selected. It seems important, however, that website managers become aware of the complexities inherent in comparative information when they release information on the Web. Important complexities to pay attention to are the use of numbers, the display of contradictory information, and the extent of variation among attributes and attribute levels. As for the integration of different information types, it remains unclear which presentation approaches are preferable. Our study provides a good starting point for Internet research to further address the question of how different types of information can be more effectively presented to consumers.

An experiment with regulated competition and individual mandates for universal health care: the new Dutch health insurance system

The 2006 Enthoven-inspired Dutch health insurance reform, based on regulated competition with a mandate for individuals to purchase insurance, will interest U.S. policy makers who seek universal coverage. This ongoing experiment includes guaranteed issue, price competition for a standardized basic benefits package, community rating, sliding-scale income-based subsidies for patients, and risk equalization for insurers. Our assessment of the first two years is based on Dutch Central Bank statistics, national opinion polls, consumer surveys, and qualitative interviews with policy makers. The first lesson for the United States is that the new Dutch health insurance model may not control costs. To date, consumer premiums are increasing, and insurance companies report large losses on the basic policies. Second, regulated competition is unlikely to make voters/citizens happy; public satisfaction is not high, and perceived quality is down. Third, consumers may not behave as economic models predict, remaining responsive to price incentives. Finally, policy makers should not underestimate the opposition from health care providers who define their profession as more than simply a job. If regulated competition with individual mandates performs poorly in auspicious circumstances such as the Netherlands, how will this model fare in the United States, where access, quality, and cost challenges are even greater? Might the assumptions of economic theory not apply in the health sector?