Trust in times of health reform

Healthcare reform in the Netherlands: after 15 years of regulated competition

This article discusses the results and prospects of the market reform in Dutch health care which came into force in 2006. Attention is paid to the results of the health insurance reform, the experience with the shift from passive to active purchasing and the impact of the reform on healthcare provision and cost control respectively. Other topics discussed are the consequences of the reform for administrative costs, institutional trust in health insurance, and the power balance in health care after reform. The central message is that the high expectations of the market reform have not come true. Dutch health care features a high degree of hybridity and there are indications that the system is becoming ever more hybrid: the system operates much less market-like than the market frame suggests. Currently, the policy narrative on the reform is changing. Policymakers and policy documents underscore the need for cooperation in provider networks and more state direction. The Dutch experience with health care reform illustrates the pendulum theory. After a period of a belief in competition and less state direction the pendulum in policymaking swings back to a belief in cooperation and a pro-active role of the state.

Social context matters: The role of social support and social norms in support for solidarity in healthcare financing

In many European countries, including the Netherlands, the healthcare system is financed according to the principles of solidarity. It is important, therefore, that public support for solidarity in healthcare financing is sufficient in order to ensure that people remain willing to contribute towards solidarity-based systems. The high willingness to contribute to the healthcare costs of others in the Netherlands suggests that support is generally high. However, there are differences between groups. Previous research has focused on mechanisms at the individual and institutional level to explain these differences. However, people's social context may also play a role. Little research has been conducted into this. To fill this gap, we examined the role of perceived social support and social norms in order to explain differences in the willingness to contribute to other people's healthcare costs. In November 2021, we conducted a survey study in which a questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of 1,500 members of the Dutch Healthcare Consumer Panel. This was returned by 837 panel members (56% response rate). Using logistic regression analysis, we showed that people who perceive higher levels of social support are more willing to contribute to the healthcare costs of others. We also found that the willingness to contribute is higher when someone's social context is more supportive of healthcare systems that are financed according to the principles of solidarity. This effect does not differ between people who perceive low and high levels of social support. Our results suggest that, next to the individual and institutional level, the social context of people has to be taken into consideration in policy and research addressing support for solidarity in healthcare financing.

Patient Power and Empowerment: Mitigating Elements of Valuable Patient Participation in Healthcare Collaboratives

During the last decade, the public healthcare sector has had to deal with increased competition, a growing influence of patient associations, and a necessity to deliver health services more efficiently and effectively. Despite recognising the patient participant's role as a critical stakeholder in value creation, there is a limited body of research on the influence and power of patient participants. This article focuses on regional health improvement collaboratives that aim to develop coordinated, multi-stakeholder solutions to their healthcare cost and quality problems. They meet regularly and include health professionals, health insurance providers, and patient participants. In this article, we explore the relationships between these stakeholders and patient participants' interpersonal dimensions regarding empowerment and valuable collaboration. Data were collected through stakeholder observations during meetings of three regional health improvement collaboratives, as well as through semi-structured interviews with the patient participants involved in these cases. Results show that patient participants can be empowered on a personal level. However, this does not imply that patient participants are empowered within the group dynamics. Interpersonal relationships constitute a crucial hidden aspect of building trust. More dialogue and inquiry are needed to examine how patient engagement is enacted and positioned within healthcare collaboratives.

Has public support for solidarity in healthcare financing in the Netherlands changed over time? A repeated cross-sectional study

It is argued that solidarity-based healthcare systems are under pressure and that public support is decreasing. It can, therefore, be expected that support for solidarity in healthcare financing has diminished over time. However, little research has been conducted into this. To fill this gap, we used survey data from 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021 to examine changes in public support for solidarity in healthcare financing in the Netherlands over time. This was operationalised as the own willingness and the expected willingness of others to contribute to other people's healthcare costs. Using logistic regression analysis, we found that the own willingness to contribute has slightly increased among the general population over time, although this was not observed in all subgroups. No change in the expected willingness of others to contribute was observed. Our results suggest that the willingness to contribute to other people's healthcare costs has, at least, not decreased over time. A majority of the Dutch population remains willing to share the burden of healthcare costs, indicating support for the principles of the solidarity-based healthcare system. However, not all people are willing to contribute to the healthcare costs of others. In addition, we do not know how much people want to pay. Further research into these topics is necessary.

Use of regional transmural agreements to support the right care in the right place for patients with chronic heart failure-a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure (CHF) poses a major challenge for healthcare systems. As these patients' needs vary over time in intensity and complexity, the coordination of care between primary and secondary care is critical for them to receive the right care in the right place. To support the continuum of care needed, Dutch regional transmural agreements (RTAs) between healthcare providers have been developed. However, little is known about how the stakeholders have experienced the development and use of these RTAs. The aim of this study was to gain insight into how stakeholders have experienced the development and use of RTAs for CHF and explore which factors affected this.

METHODS

We interviewed 25 stakeholders from 9 Dutch regions based on the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations framework. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed through open thematic coding.

RESULTS

In most cases, the RTA development was considered relatively easy. However, the participants noted that sustainable use of the RTAs faced different complexities and influencing factors. These barriers concerned the following themes: education of primary care providers, referral process, patients' willingness, relationships between healthcare providers, reimbursement by health insurance companies, electronic health record (EHR) systems and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Some complexities, such as reimbursement and EHR systems, are likely to benefit from specialised support or a national approach. On a regional level, interregional learning can improve stakeholders' experiences. Future research should focus on quantitative effects of RTAs on outcomes and potential financing models for projects that aim to transition care from one setting to another.

The relation between trust and the willingness of enrollees to receive healthcare advice from their health insurer

BACKGROUND

In a healthcare system based on managed competition, it is important that health insurers are able to channel enrollees to preferred providers. This results in incentives for healthcare providers to improve the quality and reduce the price of care. One of the instruments to guide enrollees to preferred providers is by providing healthcare advice. In order to use healthcare advice as an effective instrument, it is important that enrollees accept the health insurer as a healthcare advisor. As trust in health insurers is not high, this may be an obstacle for enrollees to be receptive to the health insurer's advice. This study aims to investigate the association between trust in the health insurer and the willingness to receive healthcare advice from the health insurer in the Netherlands. In terms of receiving healthcare advice, we examine both enrollees' willingness to approach the health insurer themselves and their willingness to be approached by the health insurer.

METHODS

In February 2021, a questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of the Dutch population. The questionnaire was completed by 885 respondents (response rate 59%). Respondents were asked about their willingness to receive healthcare advice, and trust in the health insurer was measured using a validated multiple item scale. Logistic regression models were conducted to analyse the results.

RESULTS

Enrollees with more trust in the health insurer were more willing to approach their health insurer for healthcare advice (OR = 1.07, p = 0.00). In addition, a higher level of trust in the health insurer is significantly associated with the odds that enrollees would like it/really appreciate it if their health insurer actively approached them with healthcare advice (OR = 1.07, p = 0.00). The role of trust in the willingness to receive healthcare advice is not proven to differ between groups with regard to educational levels, health status or age.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that trust plays a role in the willingness to receive healthcare advice from the health insurer. The association between the two emphasizes the importance to increase enrollees' trust in the health insurer. As a result, health insurers may be better able to fulfil their role as healthcare advisor.

Antecedents, Consequences, and the Role of Third Parties in the Trust Repair Process: Evidence Taken from Orthodontics

Orthodontic treatment has popularized in Taiwan. Healthcare institutions can be responsive in their coping strategies and determine whether third-party intervention should take place involving medical disputes related to orthodontics in order to repair patient trust. This study draws on orthodontic treatment to explore the effect of various trust repair strategies employed by healthcare institutions and third-party involvement positively affecting outcomes related to trust repair. Patients were recruited among those who have undergone orthodontic treatments, and 353 valid scenario-based questionnaires were collected through an online survey. Results revealed that: (1) the affective and informational repair strategies positively impacted trust repair while the functional repair strategy did not; (2) trust repair positively impacted patient satisfaction/word-of-mouth and mediated between repair strategies and satisfaction/word-of-mouth; and (3) third-party involvement moderated the relationship between trust repair and word-of-mouth. The findings suggest that rather than receiving monetary compensation, patients usually prefer that healthcare institutions acknowledge their fault, offer apologies, and engage in active communications to clarify the causes of medical dispute. Further, an objective third party should be involved to mediate the medical disputes to afford satisfaction all around.

Factors Influencing Procurement of Digital Healthcare: A Case Study in Dutch District Nursing

BACKGROUND

Digital health is considered a promising solution in keeping health care accessible and affordable. However, implementation is often complex and sustainable funding schemes are lacking. Despite supporting policy, scaling up innovative forms of health care progresses much slower than intended in Dutch national framework agreements. The aim of this study is to identify factors that influence the procurement of digital health particular in district nursing.

METHODS

A case study approach was used, in which multiple stakeholder perspectives are compared using thematic framework analysis. The case studied was the procurement of digital health in Dutch district nursing. Literature on implementation of digital health, public procurement and payment models was used to build the analytic framework. We analysed fourteen interviews (secondary data), two focus groups organised by the national task force procurement and eight governmental and third-party reports.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged from the analysis: 1) rationale 2) provider-payer relationship, 3) resources, 4) evidence, and 5) the payment model. Per theme a number of factors were identified, mostly related to the design and functioning of the Dutch health system and to the implementation process at providers' side.

CONCLUSION

This study identified factors influencing the procurement of digital health in Dutch district nursing. The findings, however, are not unique for digital health, district nursing or the Dutch health system. The results presented will support policy makers, and decision makers to improve procurement of digital health. Investing in better relationships between payer and care provider organisations and professionals is an important next step towards scaling digital health.

(Dis)trust in doctors and public and private healthcare institutions in the Western Balkans

Introduction

Considering the geopolitical changes in the six Western Balkan countries—Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia—over the last three decades, particularly as it concerns the progress and changes in the healthcare systems, we argue that there is a need for a detailed analysis of people's trust in those healthcare systems and healthcare providers.

Methods

In this cross‐sectional, intercountry study, we examine the trust trends of Western Balkans citizens in medical doctors and public and private healthcare institutions from 25 July 2021 to 30 October 2021, with 3789 participants using a self‐reported questionnaire, and Google Forms. Snowball sampling is used to collect data from six Western Balkans countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia.

Findings

The primary findings of our study show that citizens in the Western Balkans have a low level of trust in their healthcare system (X̄ = 4.3/10). Medical doctors working in private healthcare institutions, on the other hand, are afforded a higher level of trust (X̄ = 6.6/10) than those working in public healthcare institutions (X̄ = 5.7/10). In the event that they or their family members need to visit a health institution, half of the study participants would choose private healthcare institutions over public ones. We found a statistically significant difference between countries on the mean points from the questions concerning one's trust in the healthcare system, private healthcare institutions and medical doctors working in public and private sectors (p < .05).

Conclusion

Despite its limitations, this study is the first cross‐sectional research on the ‘trust interface’ among western Balkan citizens, revealing that they have low trust in their healthcare systems.

Public Contribution

The information in this manuscript was gathered on the level of 3789 citizens from six Western Balkan countries. Before we began collecting data, we conducted a piloting procedure with 40 citizens who were clients of health institutions to validate the data collection questionnaire.

Orchestration versus bookkeeping: How stakeholder pressures drive a healthcare purchaser's institutional logics

Background

Healthcare purchasers such as health insurers and governmental bodies are expected to strategically manage chronic care chains. In doing so, purchasers can contribute to the goal of improving task division and collaboration between chronic care providers as has been recommended by numerous studies. However, healthcare purchasing research indicates that, in most countries, purchasers still struggle to fulfil a proactive, strategic approach. Consequently, a typical pattern occurs in which care improvement initiatives are instigated, but not transformed into regular care. By acknowledging that healthcare purchasers are embedded in a care chain of stakeholders who have different, sometimes conflicting, interests and, by taking an institutional logics lens, we seek to explain why achieving strategic purchasing and sustainable improvement is so elusive.

Method and findings

We present a longitudinal case study in which we follow a health insurer and care providers aiming to improve the care of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in a region of the Netherlands. Taking a theoretical lens of institutional logics, our aim was to answer ‘how stakeholder pressures influence a purchaser’s use of institutional logics when pursuing the right care at the right place’. The insurer by default predominantly expressed a bookkeeper’s logic, reflecting a focus on controlling short-term care costs by managing individual providers. Over time, a contrasting orchestrator’s logic emerged in an attempt to achieve chain-wide improvement, striving for better health outcomes and lower long-term costs. We established five types of stakeholder pressure to explain the shift in logic adoption: relationship pressures, cost pressures, medical demands, public health demands and uncertainty. Linking the changes in logic over time with stakeholder pressures showed that, firstly, the different pressures interact in influencing the purchaser. Secondly, we saw that the lack of intra-organisational alignment affects how the purchaser deals with the different stakeholder pressures.

Conclusions

By highlighting the purchaser’s difficult position in the care chain and the consequences of their own internal responses, we now better understand why the intended orchestrator’s logic and thereby a strategic approach to purchasing chronic care proves unsustainable within the Dutch healthcare system of managed competition.

Restoring patient trust in healthcare: medical information impact case study in Poland

Background

This study empirically evaluates the influence of medical information on patient trust at the physician level, the medical profession, hospitals, and with the payer. Restoring patient trust in a medical setting in Poland appears to be significantly affected due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient trust improves results from medical treatment, raises perception of healthcare performance, and smoothens the overall functionality of healthcare systems.

Methods

In order to study trust volatility, patients took part in a three-stage experiment designed via: (1) measured level of trust, (2) randomly dividing participants into two groups—control (i.e., re-examination of level of trust) and experimental (i.e., being exposed to a piece of certain manipulative information), and (3) checking whether observational changes were permanent.

Results

Results indicate that in the experimental group the increase of trust was noticed in the payer (27.7%, p < 0.001), hospitals (10.9%, p = 0.011), and physicians (decrease of 9.2%, p = 0.036).

Conclusion

The study indicated that in Poland medical information is likely to influence patient trust in healthcare while interpersonal and social trust levels may be related to increases of trust in hospitals and in the payer versus decreases in physicians.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06879-2.

Power, legitimacy and urgency: Unravelling the relationship between Dutch healthcare organisations and their financial stakeholders

Healthcare organisations rely on their financial stakeholders for capital to invest in state-of-the-art buildings, equipment, innovation and the delivery of healthcare services. Nevertheless, relations between healthcare organisations and their financial stakeholders have not been well studied. Here, we studied the relations between Dutch healthcare organisations and two of their main financial stakeholders (banks and health insurers) against the backdrop of system reforms and the financial crisis. We conducted a survey of healthcare executives to evaluate their relations with banks and health insurers in terms of power, legitimacy and urgency. These three attributes are based on the salience model of Mitchel, Agle and Wood (1997). We further tested for differences in power, legitimacy and urgency across organisational sector and size. The results showed that healthcare organisations value banks as legitimate stakeholders with a well-demarcated influence and a clear-cut function. The relationship with health insurers is more complex. Healthcare organisations experience considerable influence from health insurers but question the legitimacy of their claims. Since health insurers play a crucial role in the Dutch healthcare system, these findings question the workability of the relationship between healthcare organisations and health insurers and the position of health insurers in the overall healthcare sector. Our results are relevant to countries with public-private health systems and contribute to the development of the salience model by showing the individual value of stakeholder attributes and the relevance of context.

Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post-procedural communication framework

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making and patient-centred communication have become part of pre-procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about their procedure and device.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the patients' knowledge of identifying information for their implanted devices and perspectives on sharing their implanted device information.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted with patients who had received a cardiac or vascular implanted device from one of the study sites within the previous 6 months. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged: lack of awareness of identifying information on implanted devices; value of information on implanted devices; varying trust with sharing device information; perceived risk with sharing device information; and lack of consensus on a systematic process for tracking implanted devices.

DISCUSSION

Patients desire post-procedural information on their implanted device and a designated plan for longitudinal follow-up, but lack trust and perceive risk with broadly sharing their implanted device information.

CONCLUSION

After receiving an implanted device, post-procedural patient communication needs to be expanded to include identifying information on the device including the unique device identifier, how long-term tracking will be supported and the process for notification in case of a problem with the device. This communication should also include education on how sharing device information supports patients' long-term health care, post-market safety surveillance and research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research team included members who were also patients with implanted devices.

Trust in Intensive Care Patients, Family, and Healthcare Professionals: The Development of a Conceptual Framework Followed by a Case Study

Intensive care patients experience anxiety, pain, uncertainty, and total dependency. In general, it is important to develop trust between the healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients, and their family. Trust building in the ICU setting is challenging because of the time sensitivity of decision making and the dependency of patients on health care professionals. The objectives of this study are the development of a trust framework and then to use this framework in a case study in the intensive care. In three steps we developed a comprehensive trust framework from the literature concerning trust. First, we identified the elements of trust. Second, we adapted and integrated the dimensions to six concepts to construct the trust framework. Third, these concepts are incorporated into a comprehensive trust framework. In a case study we explored the facilitators and barriers within this framework in eight semi-open interviews with healthcare professionals and eight patients or partners. Trust was first explored inductively and then deductively. We showed that HCPs, patients, and family have largely the same perspective regarding the facilitators of trust, in which communication emerged as the most important one. Other facilitators are maintaining an open feedback culture for HCPs and being aware of patients' physical and informational privacy. Patients want to be approached as an individual with individual needs. Dishonesty and differences in values and norms were the most important barriers. To contribute to a positive perception of health delivery and to avoid conflicts between HCP and patients or their family we formulated five practical recommendations.

Effects of the reform of the Dutch healthcare into managed competition: Results of a Delphi study among experts

BACKGROUND

In 2006 a major healthcare reform was introduced in the Netherlands, implying managed competition. This study explored the level of consensus on the outcomes and desired changes of this new system, and differences between stakeholder groups.

METHODS

A three-round Delphi-study was conducted among Dutch healthcare insurers, health economists, and professionals in general practice (GP) care and mental health (MH) care. In the first round, 20 experts indicated the most important advantages and disadvantages of the Dutch managed competition, and desired changes. Experts in the second (n = 106) and third round (N = 88) rated the importance of the 88 factors identified in the first round.

RESULTS

Only healthcare insurers reached consensus on important advantages (i.e. improved efficiency; room for choice). Health economists reached almost no consensus on any factors. GP and MH-care professionals reached most consensus on disadvantages (i.e. focus on price over quality, increased bureaucracy) and desired changes (i.e. reduce bargaining power of healthcare insurers; increase attention for care of complex patients); half of them suggested abolishment of managed competition.

CONCLUSION

GP and MH-care professionals were most dissatisfied and suggested several changes or even abolishment of the 2006 reform; healthcare insurers mentioned some benefits. This level of dissatisfaction among health care professionals indicates that there is room for improvement, preferably developed in conjunction with stakeholders.

Power and Purchasing: Why Strategic Purchasing Fails

Policy Points Strategically purchasing health care has been and continues to be a popular policy idea around the world. Key asymmetries in information, market power, political power, and financial power hinder the effective implementation of strategic purchasing. Strategic purchasing has consistently failed to live up to its promises for these reasons. Future strategies based on strategic purchasing should tailor their expectations to its real effectiveness.

CONTEXT

Strategic purchasing of health care has been a popular policy idea around the world for decades, with advocates claiming that it can lead to improved quality, patient satisfaction, efficiency, accountability, and even population health. In this article, we report the results of an inquiry into the implementation and effects of strategic purchasing.

METHODS

We conducted three in-depth case studies of England, the Netherlands, and the United States. We reviewed definitions of purchasing, including its slow acquisition of adjectives such as strategic, and settled on a definition of purchasing that distinguishes it from the mere use of contracts to regulate stable interorganizational relationships. The case studies review the career of strategic purchasing in three different systems where its installation and use have been a policy priority for years.

FINDINGS

No existing health care system has effective strategic purchasing because of four key asymmetries: market power asymmetry, information asymmetry, financial asymmetry, and political power asymmetry.

CONCLUSIONS

Further investment in policies that are premised on the effectiveness of strategic purchasing, or efforts to promote it, may not be worthwhile. Instead, policymakers may need to focus on the real sources of power in a health care system. Policy for systems with existing purchasing relationships should take into account the asymmetries, ways to work with them, and the constraints that they create.

How healthcare systems shape a purchaser's strategies and actions when managing chronic care

Healthcare purchasing organisations in both insurance-based and tax-based healthcare systems struggle to improve chronic care. A key challenge for purchasers is to deal with the chain of multiple providers involved in caring for patients with complex needs. To date, most research has focused on differences between healthcare systems in terms of regulation, tools and the freedom that healthcare purchasers have. However, this does not explain how such different healthcare system characteristics lead to different purchasing strategies and actions. A better understanding of this link between system characteristics and purchaser behaviour would assist policymakers seeking to improve healthcare purchasing. This multiple case study conducted in England, Sweden and the Netherlands examines the link between the different healthcare systems' characteristics and the purchasers' strategies and actions when managing chronic care chains. Purchasers' strategies and actions varied in terms of the purchaser's engagement, strategic lens and influencing style. Our findings suggest that differences in purchaser competition, purchaser governance and patient choice in healthcare systems are key factors in explaining a purchaser's strategies and actions when pursuing improvements in chronic care. This study contributes to knowledge on what shapes the purchaser's role, and shows how policymakers in both insurance- and tax-based regimes can improve healthcare purchasing.