Barriers to payment reform: Experiences from nine Dutch population health management sites.

Population health management (PHM) initiatives aim for better population health, quality of care and reduction of expenditure growth by integrating and optimizing services across domains. Reforms shifting payment of providers from traditional fee-for-service towards value-based payment models may support PHM. We aimed to gain insight into payment reform in nine Dutch PHM sites. Specifically, we investigated 1) the type of payment models implemented, and 2) the experienced barriers towards payment reform. Between October 2016 and February 2017, we conducted 36 (semi-)structured interviews with program managers, hospitals, insurers and primary care representatives of the sites. We addressed the structure of payment models and barriers to payment reform in general. After three years of PHM, we found that four shared savings models for pharmaceutical care and five extensions of existing (bundled) payment models adding providers into the model were implemented. Interviewees stated that reluctance to shift financial accountability to providers was partly due to information asymmetry, a lack of trust and conflicting incentives between providers and insurers, and last but not least a lack of a sense of urgency. Small steps to payment reform have been taken in the Dutch PHM sites, which is in line with other international PHM initiatives. While acknowledging the autonomy of PHM sites, governmental stewardship (e.g. long-term vision, supporting knowledge development) can further stimulate value-based payment reforms.

Which Triple Aim related measures are being used to evaluate population management initiatives? An international comparative analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Population management (PM) initiatives are introduced in order to create sustainable health care systems. These initiatives should focus on the continuum of health and well-being of a population by introducing interventions that integrate various services. To be successful they should pursue the Triple Aim, i.e. simultaneously improve population health and quality of care while reducing costs per capita. This study explores how PM initiatives measure the Triple Aim in practice. METHOD: An exploratory search was combined with expert consultations to identify relevant PM initiatives. These were analyzed based on general characteristics, utilized measures and related selection criteria. RESULTS: In total 865 measures were used by 20 PM initiatives. All quality of care domains were included by at least 11 PM initiatives, while most domains of population health and costs were included by less than 7 PM initiatives. Although their goals showed substantial overlap, the measures applied showed few similarities between PM initiatives and were predominantly selected based on local priority areas and data availability. CONCLUSION: Most PM initiatives do not measure the full scope of the Triple Aim. Additionally, variety between measures limits comparability between PM initiatives. Consensus on the coverage of Triple Aim domains and a set of standardized measures could further both the inclusion of the various domains as well as the comparability between PM initiatives.

Needs and barriers to improve the collaboration in oral anticoagulant therapy: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) involves many health care disciplines. Even though collaboration between care professionals is assumed to improve the quality of OAT, very little research has been done into the practice of OAT management to arrange and manage the collaboration. This study aims to identify the problems in collaboration experienced by the care professionals involved, the solutions they proposed to improve collaboration, and the barriers they encountered to the implementation of these solutions. METHODS: In the Netherlands, intensive follow-up of OAT is provided by specialized anticoagulant clinics (ACs). Sixty-eight semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 103 professionals working at an AC. These semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively. Wagner's chronic care model (CCM) and Cabana's framework for improvement were used to categorize the results. RESULTS: AC professionals experienced three main bottlenecks in collaboration: lack of knowledge (mostly of other professionals), lack of consensus on OAT, and limited information exchange between professionals. They mentioned several solutions to improve collaboration, especially solutions of CCM's decision support component (i.e. education, regular meetings, and agreements and protocols). Education is considered a prerequisite for the successful implementation of other proposed solutions such as developing a multidisciplinary protocol and changing the allocation of tasks. The potential of the health care organization to improve collaboration seemed to be underestimated by professionals. They experienced several barriers to the successful implementation of the proposed solutions. Most important barriers were the lack motivation of non-AC professionals and lack of time to establish collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that the collaboration in OAT is limited by a lack of knowledge, a lack of consensus, and a limited information exchange. Education was identified as the best way to improve collaboration and considered a prerequisite for a successful implementation of other proposed solutions. Hence, the implementation sequence is of importance in order to improve the collaboration successfully. First step is to establish alignment regarding collaboration with all involved professionals to encounter the lack of motivation of non-AC professionals and lack of time.