"It's not a one operation fits all": A qualitative study exploring fee setting and participation in price transparency initiatives amongst medical specialists in the Australian private healthcare sector.

The Australian government, through Medicare, defines the type of medical specialist services it covers and subsidizes, but it does not regulate prices. Specialists in private practice can charge more than the fee listed by Medicare depending on what they feel 'the market will bear'. This can sometimes result in high and unexpected out-of-pocket (OOP) payments for patients. To reduce pricing uncertainty and 'bill shock' faced by consumers, the government introduced a price transparency website in December 2019. It is not clear how effective such a website will be and whether specialists and patients will use it. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore factors influencing how specialists set their fees, and their views on and participation in price transparency initiatives. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with surgical specialists. We analysed the data using thematic analysis and responses were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behavior model. We identified several patient, specialist and system-level factors influencing fee setting. Patient-level factors included patient characteristics, circumstance, complexity, and assumptions regarding perceived value of care. Specialist-level factors included perceived experience and skills, ethical considerations, and gendered-behavior. System-level factors included the Australian Medical Association recommended price list, practice costs, and supply and demand factors including perceived competition and practice location. Specialists were opposed to price transparency websites and lacked motivation to participate because of the complexity of fee setting, concerns over unintended consequences, and feelings of frustration they were being singled out. If price transparency websites are to be pursued, specialists' lack of motivation to participate needs to be addressed.

The Impact of Public Performance Reporting on Market Share, Mortality, and Patient Mix Outcomes Associated With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (2000-2016): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Public performance reporting (PPR) of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes aim to improve the quality of care in hospitals, surgeons and to inform consumer choice. Past CABG and PCI studies have showed mixed effects of PPR on quality and selection. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of PPR on market share, mortality, and patient mix outcomes associated with CABG and PCI. METHODS: Six online databases and 8 previous reviews were searched for the period 2000-2016. Data extraction, quality assessment, systematic critical synthesis, and meta-analysis (where possible) were carried out on included studies. RESULTS: In total, 22 relevant articles covering mortality (n=19), patient mix (n=14), and market share (n=6) outcomes were identified. Meta-analyses showed that PPR led to a near but not significant reduction in short-term mortality for both CABG and PCI. PPR on CABG showed a positive effect on market share for hospitals (3 of 6 studies) and low-performing surgeons (2 of 2 studies). Five of 6 PCI studies found that high-risk patients were less likely to be treated in States with PPR. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that PPR reduces mortality rates in CABG/PCI-treated patients. The significance of there being no strong evidence, in the period 2000-2016, should be considered. There is need for both further development of PPR practice and further research into the intended and unintended consequences of PPR.

Does more equitable governance lead to more equitable health care? A case study based on the implementation of health reform in Aboriginal health Australia.

There is growing evidence that providing increased voice to vulnerable or disenfranchised populations is important to improving health equity. In this paper we will examine the engagement of Aboriginal community members and community controlled organisations in local governance reforms associated with the Aboriginal Health National Partnership Agreements (AHNPA) in Australia and its impact on the uptake of health assessments. The sample included qualitative and quantitative responses from 188 people involved in regional governance in Aboriginal health. The study included data on the uptake of Aboriginal health assessments from July 2008 to December 2012. The study population was 83190 in 2008/9, 856986 in 2009/10, 88256 in 2010/11 and 90903 in 2011/12. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationships between organisations within forums and the regional uptake of Aboriginal health assessments. The independent variables included before and after the AHNPA, state, remoteness, level of representation from Aboriginal organisations and links between Aboriginal and mainstream organisations. The introduction of the AHNPA was associated with a shift in power from central government to regional forums. This shift has enabled Aboriginal people a much greater voice in governance. The results of the analyses show that improvements in the uptake of health assessments were associated with stronger links between Aboriginal organisations and between mainstream organisations working with Aboriginal organisations. Higher levels of community representation were also associated with improved uptake of health assessments in the AHNPA. The findings suggest that the incorporation of Aboriginal community and community controlled organisations in regional planning plays an important role in improving health equity. This study makes an important contribution to understanding the processes through which the incorporation of disadvantaged groups into governance might contribute to health equity.