RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence from other countries for its effectiveness, flexible and integrative psychiatric treatment (FIT) is not part of the German standard healthcare system. Since 2013, German legislative reform has enabled a test implementation of FIT based on a global treatment budget. Because the budget is not restricted to any particular activity, this legislation opens the possibility of enhancing linkages between inpatient-, outpatient- and day-patient treatment structures. As staff involvement is a relevant component in successful implementation, we aimed in this study to judge the degree of FIT implementation based on staff members' experiences and evaluations of FIT. METHOD: Within an exploratory study design, we administered a standardized written survey to rate experiences and evaluations of physicians, psychologists, and nurses in the first 13 FIT projects between October 2016 and February 2017. The sample consisted of 352 nurses, 127 physicians, 84 psychologists, and 132 special therapists. We identified critical factors for successful implementation from the staff perspective by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Staff evaluations of the degree of FIT implementation were generally favorable, although some staff reported no experiences with one or several FIT-specific components. We found considerable differences in the assessments between the occupational groups. The only common factor for successful FIT implementation shared by physicians, psychologists, and nurses was the opportunity to join training programs on the objectives of FIT. Other critical factors for successful implementation were work conditions, the number of nurses/special therapists per physician/psychologist, and project duration. These factors together explained 49% of the variance of physician/psychologist evaluations and 34% for nurse evaluations. Individual staff members' characteristics were less important than structural- or FIT characteristics as explanatory factors for the degree of FIT implementation. IMPLICATIONS: Results point to the importance of new forms of multi-professional cooperation, training programs, improvement of work conditions, and guidance of the implementation process by systematic Change Management for future implementations of FIT. Our exploratory findings require further validation to guide practical improvements in FIT implementation. Longitudinal observations and a multilevel analysis should yield a better understanding of the relevant variables from different organization levels and their possible interactions.
RESUMO
Sickness funds became the focal point of health insurance reforms in the 1990s. Policy makers expected funds to become more consumer-oriented and more active in managing the provision of health care. This is especially true for two countries in the heart of Europe that, on first view, have many similar institutional characteristics. Both Germany and The Netherlands have introduced competition between sickness funds in the last decade. We present extensive quantitative, as well qualitative, data with regard to the behaviour of consumers after the introduction of free choice between sickness funds. National data was used with regard to contribution rates and member flows and survey data was used to investigate personal motives for actual change and perception of differences between sickness funds. In Germany, contribution rates between sickness funds differ significantly. Accordingly, these differences are the main reason for consumers to switch funds, which occurs on a considerable scale. However, survey data show that other reasons may be important too. In The Netherlands, premium differences are much lower. The same is true for the degree of change. Survey data show that consumers perceive very small differences between sickness funds and do not see much reason for change. Our findings support the claim that the degree of actual changing depends strongly on economic incentives, especially with regard to the extent of financial risk sickness funds have to bear and to the extent premiums or contribution rates can differ. However, the higher the financial risk of individual sickness funds actually is, the higher the incentives for risk selection.