Headline indicators for monitoring the performance of health systems: findings from the european Health Systems_Indicator (euHS_I) survey.

BACKGROUND: Cross-country comparisons of health system performance have become increasingly important. Clear evidence is needed on the prioritization of health system performance assessment (HSPA) indicators. Selected "leading" or "headline" HSPA indicators may provide early warnings of policy impacts. The goal of this paper is to propose a set of headline indicators to frame and describe health system performance. METHODS: We identified overlaps and gaps in the availability of reported indicators by looking at HSPA initiatives in Member States (MSs) of the European Union (EU), the European Commission as well as international institutions (e.g. OECD, WHO-EUR). On that basis, we conducted a two-stage online survey, the european Health System_Indicator (euHS_I) survey. The survey sought to elicit preferences from a wide range of HSPA experts on i) the most relevant HSPA domain(s), i.e. access, efficiency, quality of care, equity, for a specific indicator, and ii) the importance of indicators regarding their information content, i.e. headline, operational, explanatory. Frequency analysis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 2168 health and health system indicators listed in 43 relevant initiatives. After adjusting for overlaps, a total of 361 indicators were assessed by 28 experts in the 1st stage of the survey. In the 2nd stage, a more balanced set of 95 indicators was constructed and assessed by 72 experts from 22 EU MSs and 3 non-EU countries. In the domain access experts assessed share of population covered by health insurance as the top headline indicator. In the domain efficiency, the highest rank was given to Total health care expenditure by all financing agents, and in the domain quality of care to rate of hospital-acquired infections. Percentage of households experiencing high levels/catastrophic of out-of-pocket health expenditures results as the top headline indicator for domain equity. CONCLUSIONS: HSPA indicators from different initiatives largely overlap and public health indicators dominate over health systems aspects. The survey allowed to quantify overlaps and gaps in HSPA indicators, their expert allocation to domain areas and establishment of an informed hierarchy structure. Yet, results show that more multidisciplinary work is needed to ensure the availability of accurate efficiency indicators which are comparable across countries.

Health sector employment growth calls for improvements in labor productivity.

While rising costs of healthcare have put increased fiscal pressure on public finance, job growth in the health sector has had a stabilizing force on overall employment levels - not least in times of economic crises. In 2014 EU-15 countries employed 21 million people in the health and social care sector. Between 2000 and 2014 the share of employed persons in this sector rose from 9.5% to 12.5% of the total labor force in EU-15 countries. Over time labor input growth has shifted towards residential care activities and social work while labor in human health activities including hospitals and ambulatory care still comprises the major share. About half of the human health labor force works in hospital. Variation of health and social care employment is large even in countries with generally comparable institutional structures. While standard measures of productivity in health and social care are not yet comparable across countries, we argue that labor productivity of a growing health work force needs more attention. The long-term stability of the health system will require care delivery models that better utilize a growing health work force in concert with smart investments in digital infrastructure to support this transition. In light of this, more research is needed to explain variations in health and social care labor endowments, to identify effective policy measures of labor productivity enhancement including enhanced efforts to develop comparable productivity indicators in these areas.

The Austrian health reform 2013 is promising but requires continuous political ambition.

The Austrian health system is much more complex and fragmented than in other OECD countries. In 2013 legislation was adopted to enhance efficiency through better balancing care provision across providers by promoting new primary care models and better coordination of care. Reform objectives should be achieved by cooperative and unified decision making across key stakeholders and by adherence to a budget cap that prescribes fiscal containment on the order of 3.4 billion Euros until 2016. This is priced into the envisaged savings of the current consolidation program. Efforts have been made to bridge the accountability divide by establishing agreements and administrative layers to govern the health system by objectives. Yet, more could have been achieved. For example, cross-stakeholder pooling of funds for better contracting governance and effective purchasing across care settings could have been introduced. This would have required addressing over capacity and fragmentation within social security. At the same time, legal provisions for cooperative governance between Sickness Funds and the governments on the regional level should have been stipulated. The Austrian 2013 reform is interesting to other countries as it aims to ensure better-balanced care at a sustainable path by employing a public management approach to governance relations across key payers of care.

Austria: health system review.

This analysis of the Austrian health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health-care provision, health reforms and health-system performance. The Austrian health system provides universal coverage for a wide range of benefits and high-quality care. Free choice of providers and unrestricted access to all care levels (general practitioners, specialist physicians and hospitals) are characteristic features of the system. Unsurprisingly, population satisfaction is well above EU average. Income-related inequality in health has increased since 2005, although it is still relatively low compared to other countries. The health-care system has been shaped by both the federal structure of the state and a tradition of delegating responsibilities to self-governing stakeholders. On the one hand, this enables decentralized planning and governance, adjusted to local norms and preferences. On the other hand, it also leads to fragmentation of responsibilities and frequently results in inadequate coordination. For this reason, efforts have been made for several years to achieve more joint planning, governance and financing of the health-care system at the federal and regional level. As in any health system, a number of challenges remain. The costs of the health-care system are well above the EU15 average, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP. There are important structural imbalances in healthcare provision, with an oversized hospital sector and insufficient resources available for ambulatory care and preventive medicine. This is coupled with stark regional differences in utilization, both in curative services (hospital beds and specialist physicians) and preventative services such as preventive health check-ups, outpatient rehabilitation, psychosocial and psychotherapeutic care and nursing. There are clear social inequalities in the use of medical services, such as preventive health check-ups, immunization or dentistry. One of the key weaknesses of the health-care system is in the prevention of illness. Spending on preventive medicine, at 2% of total health spending, is significantly lower than the EU15 and OECD average (both 3%), and also shows a below-average rate of growth. It remains to be seen whether the focus on health promotion and prevention of the 'framework health goals' approved in 2012 will be translated into concrete measures, whether clear responsibilities for implementation can be assigned, and whether sufficient funding will be made available. This would be likely to improve the health of the Austrian population and would help to reduce costs associated with preventable diseases.

Incorporation of public hospitals: a "silver bullet" against overcapacity, managerial bottlenecks and resource constraints? Case studies from Austria and Estonia.

This paper presents a new approach for incorporating public hospitals by contrasting the experience from an "old" EU country (Austria) with a new EU member state (Estonia). In the EU (including the new member states) hospital overcapacity is a serious problem, from a technical, fiscal and political perspective. Few countries have succeeded in establishing an appropriate framework for resource management and for guaranteeing long-term financial viability of their hospital network. Many countries are in search of effective policies for improved hospital management and more cost-effective resource use in the health sector. Over the past decade, experiences in Austria and Estonia have emerged as innovative examples which may provide lessons for other EU countries and beyond. This paper describes the evolution of public hospitals from public budgetary units and public management to incorporated autonomous organizations under private corporate law, resulting in a contractual relationship between (public) owners and private hospital management. Outdated and inefficient public sector structures were replaced by more agile corporate management. The arrangement allows for investments, operating costs and budgeting according to strategic business goals as opposed to political "fiat". Shielding hospitals from local political influence is an important aspect of this concept. Horizontal integration through networking of public hospitals and introducing private management helps create a new corporate culture, allowing for more flexibility to achieve efficiencies through downsizing and economies of scale. Based on contracts the new balance between ownership and managerial functions create strong incentives for a more business-like, results-oriented and consumer-friendly management. This was achieved both in Austria and Estonia in a politically sensitive way, adopting a long-term vision and by protecting the interests of hospital owners and staff.

Measuring hospital efficiency in Austria--a DEA approach.

We investigate the evolution of efficiency and productivity in the hospital sector of an Austrian province for the time period 1994-1996. We use panel data to design non-parametric frontier models (Data Envelopment Analysis) and compare efficiency scores and time patterns of efficiency across medical fields. As health outcomes hardly can be measured in a direct way we make use of two different approaches for output measurement: In a first approach, we employ the number of case mix-adjusted discharges and of inpatient days, in a second we use credit points, which are calculated in course of the newly introduced diagnosis related group-type financing system. We calculate and compare individual efficiency scores for hospital wards as decision making units (DMU) in specified medical fields. To our knowledge the calculation of ward-specific efficiency scores has not up till now been the unit of non-parametric efficiency analysis. Our two models find different results: Model 1 with conservative output measurement calculates an average efficiency level of 96%, while model 2 with credit points for output measurement puts average efficiency at 70%. Whereas average efficiency in model 1 hardly changes and in model 2 increases modestly in the period 1994-1996, a closer look at single hospitals displays a variety of different efficiency developments over time.