Drugs, sex, money and power: an HPV vaccine case study.

In this paper we compare the experiences of seven industrialized countries in considering approval and introduction of the world's first cervical cancer-preventing vaccine. Based on case studies, articles from public agencies, professional journals and newspapers we analyse the public debate about the vaccine, examine positions of stakeholder groups and their influence on the course and outcome of this policy process. The analysis shows that the countries considered here approved the vaccine and established related immunization programs exceptionally quickly even though there still exist many uncertainties as to the vaccine's long-term effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety. Some countries even bypassed established decision-making processes. The voice of special interest groups has been prominent in all countries, drawing on societal values and fears of the public. Even though positions differed among countries, all seven decided to publicly fund the vaccine, illustrating a widespread convergence of interests. It is important that decision-makers adhere to transparent and robust guidelines in making funding decisions in the future to avoid capture by vested interests and potentially negative effects on access and equity.

Access and choice--competition under the roof of solidarity in German health care: an analysis of health policy reforms since 2004.

This paper analyses the influence of recent German health care reforms, the Statutory Health Insurance Modernization Act 2004 and the Statutory Health Insurance Competition Strengthening Act 2007, on different dimensions of access and choice. More specifically, we look at and discuss the effects of these policies on the availability, reachability and affordability of health care as well as on their impact on consumers' choice of insurers and providers. Generally, patients in Germany enjoy a high degree of free access and a lot of freedom to choose, partly leading to over- and misuse of health services. Concerning choice of insurers, one result of our analysis is that in the statutory health insurance system, the introduction of a greater variety of benefit packages will develop into an additional parameter of choice. In contrast to that, insurees more and more accept certain restrictions of choice and direct access to providers by enrolling into new forms of care (such as gatekeeping-, disease management- and integrated care programmes). However, they might benefit from better quality of care and more options for products and services that best fit their needs.

Are health problems systemic? Politics of access and choice under Beveridge and Bismarck systems.

Industrialised countries face similar challenges for improving the performance of their health system. Nevertheless, the nature and intensity of the reforms required are largely determined by each country's basic social security model. Most reforms in Beveridge-type systems have sought to increase choice and reduce waiting times while those in major Bismarck-type systems have focused on cost control by constraining the choice of providers. This paper looks at the main differences in performance of five countries and reviews their recent reform experience, focusing on three questions: Are there systematic differences in performance of Beveridge and Bismarck-type systems? What are the key parameters of healthcare system, which underlie these differences? Have recent reforms been effective? Our results do not suggest that one system-type performs consistently better than the other. In part, this may be explained by the heterogeneity in organisational design and governance both within and across these systems. Insufficient attention to those structural differences may explain the limited success of a number of recent reforms. Thus, while countries may share similar problems in terms of improving healthcare performance, adopting a 'copy-and-paste' approach to healthcare reform is likely to be ineffective.

Integrated primary care in Germany: the road ahead.

PROBLEM STATEMENT: Health care delivery in Germany is highly fragmented, resulting in poor vertical and horizontal integration and a system that is focused on curing acute illness or single diseases instead of managing patients with more complex or chronic conditions, or managing the health of determined populations. While it is now widely accepted that a strong primary care system can help improve coordination and responsiveness in health care, primary care has so far not played this role in the German system. Primary care physicians traditionally do not have a gatekeeper function; patients can freely choose and directly access both primary and secondary care providers, making coordination and cooperation within and across sectors difficult. DESCRIPTION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT: Since 2000, driven by the political leadership and initiative of the Federal Ministry of Health, the German Bundestag has passed several laws enabling new forms of care aimed to improve care coordination and to strengthen primary care as a key function in the German health care system. These include on the contractual side integrated care contracts, and on the delivery side disease management programmes, medical care centres, gatekeeping and 'community medicine nurses'. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Recent policy reforms improved framework conditions for new forms of care. There is a clear commitment by the government and the introduction of selective contracting and financial incentives for stronger cooperation constitute major drivers for change. First evaluations, especially of disease management programmes, indicate that the new forms of care improve coordination and outcomes. Yet the process of strengthening primary care as a lever for better care coordination has only just begun. Future reforms need to address other structural barriers for change such as fragmented funding streams, inadequate payment systems, the lack of standardized IT systems and trans-sectoral education and training of providers.

[The Bellagio Model: an evidence-informed, international framework for population-oriented primary care. First experiences]. / Das Bellagio-Modell: Ein evidenzgestützter, internationaler Bezugsrahmen für bevölkerungsorientierte Primärversorgung. Erste Erfahrungen.

The Bellagio Model for Population-oriented Primary Care is an evidence-informed framework to assess accessible care for sick, vulnerable, and healthy people. The model was developed in spring 2008 by a multidisciplinary group of 24 experts from nine countries. The purpose of their gathering was to determine success factors for effective 21st century primary care based on state-of-the-art research findings, models, and empirical experience, and to assist with its implementation in practice, management, and health policy. Against the backdrop of "partialization", fragmentation in open health care systems, and the growing numbers of chronically ill or fragile people or those in need of any other kind of care, today's health care systems do not provide the much needed anchor point for continuing coordination and assistance prior, during and following an episode of illness. The Bellagio Model consists of ten key elements, which can make a substantial contribution to identify and overcome current gaps in primary care by using a synergetic approach. These elements are Shared Leadership, Public Trust, Horizontal and Vertical Integration, Networking of Professionals, Standardized Measurement, Research and Development, Payment Mix, Infrastructure, Programmes for Practice Improvement, and Population-oriented Management. All of these elements, which have been identified as being equally necessary, are also alike in that they involve all those responsible for health care: providers, managers, and policymakers.