Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
3.
Schmerz ; 27(2): 129-34, 2013 Apr.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23539274

ABSTRACT

Sectorally segregated healthcare structures are seen as a major reason for deficits in quality and efficiency. With the introduction of §§ 140 a ff. SGB V, the sectoral splitting into outpatient, inpatient and rehabilitative services will be eliminated. This is especially true for the requirements of state-of-the-art multidisciplinary and comprehensive pain therapy. Through this form of contract competition and competition for the best idea, incentives shall be created for economic behaviour of market participants, above all the efficient use of limited resources and allocation of healthcare resources based on need. Selective contracts are essential competition parameters for continued innovative development of the healthcare system. They enable statutory healthcare providers to offer their insurants innovative treatments which are not available in standard care. Agreements can be made concerning higher levels of quality and healthcare services, incentives for economical behaviour and success-based payment models. The key idea is the orientation on the needs of the insurant. The successful realisation of innovation in pain therapy is described using a practical example. Professional contractual partners, high quality information and communication, the taking over of responsibility for treatment and cost effectiveness are factors essential the success of innovative treatment concepts.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/methods , National Health Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Pain Management/methods , Therapies, Investigational/methods , Cooperative Behavior , Cost-Benefit Analysis/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis/legislation & jurisprudence , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/economics , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/legislation & jurisprudence , Germany , Health Care Rationing/economics , Health Care Rationing/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Sector/economics , Health Care Sector/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Needs and Demand/economics , Health Services Needs and Demand/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Interdisciplinary Communication , National Health Programs/economics , Pain Management/economics , Reimbursement, Incentive/economics , Reimbursement, Incentive/legislation & jurisprudence , Therapies, Investigational/economics
4.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22548022

ABSTRACT

This article presents the findings of a collaborative effort between the Georgetown University Student Consulting Team and Booz Allen Hamilton to interview healthcare providers undergoing the transition to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification/Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-CM/PCS). The goals of this study were to extract a common set of trends, challenges, and lessons learned surrounding the implementation of the ICD-10-CM/PCS code set and to produce actionable information that might serve as a resource for organizations navigating the transition to ICD-10-CM/PCS. The selected survey sample focused on a subset of large hospitals, integrated health systems, and other national industry leaders who are likely to have initiated the implementation process far in advance of the October 2013 deadline. Guided by a uniform survey tool, the team conducted a series of one-on-one provider interviews with department heads, senior staff members, and project managers leading ICD-10-CM/PCS conversion efforts from six diverse health systems. As expected, the integrated health systems surveyed seem to be on or ahead of schedule for the ICD-10-CM/PCS coding transition. However, results show that as of April 2010 most providers were still in the planning stages of implementation and were working to raise awareness within their organizations. Although individual levels of preparation varied widely among respondents, the study identified several trends, challenges, and lessons learned that will enable healthcare providers to assess their own status with respect to the industry and will provide useful insight into best practices for the ICD-10-CM/PCS transition.


Subject(s)
Health Care Sector/legislation & jurisprudence , International Classification of Diseases/classification , Practice Management/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/organization & administration , Electronic Health Records , Health Personnel , Humans , International Classification of Diseases/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
11.
Int J Health Serv ; 31(4): 847-67, 2001.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-11809012

ABSTRACT

For the first time ever, a Green party has governed in Germany. From September 1998 to January 2001 the German Green party, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, held the Federal Ministry of Health. Little has been said so far about Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and its relation to health policy. This article is intended to fill that void. An analysis of the health policy program of the Greens reveals that it centers around moving the health sector toward more comprehensiveness and decentralization, strengthened patients' rights, increased use of preventive and alternative medicine, and a critique of the German cost-containment debate and policy. The current health policy program of the Greens is closest to that of the Party of Democratic Socialism, and to a lesser extent it has affinities to the program of the Social Democratic Party. The health policy program of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen is furthest from those of the Christian Democratic Union and the Free Democratic Party. The health care reforms passed in 1998 and 1999 were not a shift toward a "Green paradigm" of health care policy, because they included no fundamental changes. In addition, cost-containment is still a major political goal in German health care policy.


Subject(s)
Health Care Sector/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Politics , Democracy , Environmental Health , Germany , Health Care Reform/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Reform/trends , Health Care Sector/trends , Health Policy/trends , Health Priorities , Health Promotion , Leadership , Organizational Objectives , Patient Rights , Problem Solving , Socialism
12.
J Health Polit Policy Law ; 25(2): 343-75, 2000 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-10946383

ABSTRACT

Japanese health policy shows that even with physician ownership and the absence of for-profit, investor-owned health care, physicians' conflicts of interest thrive. Physician dispensing of drugs and ownership of hospitals and clinics were justified in Japan as ways to avoid commercialization of medicine. Instead, they create physicians' conflicts and fuel patient overuse of services. Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) has responded by introducing per-diem payment, thereby creating incentives to decrease services in ways similar to those of American managed care organizations, but with none of their benefits, such as coordination of care, oversight of physicians practices, and quality assurance. Although the United States and Japanese health care systems are organized and financed differently there is convergence in the source of their physicians' conflicts and the way they are addressed. The United States is starting to integrate institutional and physician payment and align their incentives, in a traditional Japanese way. In so doing, the United States creates new physicians' conflicts and reduces the role of countervailing incentives and power, an advantage of previous policy. Japan, in turn, has combined incentives to increase and decrease services, thus moving closer to the U.S. policy.


Subject(s)
Conflict of Interest/economics , Health Care Sector/legislation & jurisprudence , Internationality , Ownership/legislation & jurisprudence , Physician's Role , Codes of Ethics , Disclosure , Drug Industry , Drug Utilization/economics , Entrepreneurship , Gift Giving , Government Agencies , Government Regulation , Hospital Administration , Japan , Managed Care Programs/organization & administration , National Health Programs , Physician Incentive Plans , Physician Self-Referral/legislation & jurisprudence , Professional Misconduct , Social Change , United States
14.
J Health Polit Policy Law ; 24(4): 653-96, 1999 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-10503152

ABSTRACT

Discussion of health care cost control policy and politics tends to focus on terms such as "market," "government," and "managed care" that are either too general or too value laden to encourage sound analysis. This article proposes an alternative framework for classifying cost control policies. It first distinguishes targets from systems of control. Targets can then be divided into categories of service (e.g., hospital care, pharmaceutical treatment) and components of cost (e.g., price and volume). Systems can be classified in terms of the degree of pooling of finance, ranging from no insurance to a single pool of funds, and how payment of providers is organized, ranging from all payers paying all providers on the same terms to extensive selective contracting among payers and providers. The article analyzes examples of target policy and politics, system policy and politics, and how system choices can influence which targets are targeted how well, so as to show that both policy consequences and political alignments become clearer by using these terms. As one instance, discussions of "managed care" are often confused because the term has two meanings, one referring to target policy and one to system policy.


Subject(s)
Cost Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Reform/economics , Health Care Sector/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Politics , Health Care Costs/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Insurance, Health/economics , National Health Programs/economics , National Health Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Policy Making , United States
15.
Health Policy ; 47(1): 19-36, 1999 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-10387808

ABSTRACT

The process of health care reform benefits tremendously from comparing characteristics and performance across nations. This paper studies market-oriented health insurance reforms in three Latin American countries: Argentina, Chile and Colombia. Chile allowed private health insurers to compete for workers payroll contributions in the 1980s, permitting the modernization of the private health sector but relatively impoverishing the public health sector as a consequence of selection practices by private carriers. In the 1990s, Argentina and Colombia started liberalizing the health insurance sector but using policies to avoid the adverse effects encountered in the Chilean experience. These policies are scrutinized while challenges for these and future health insurance reform processes are discussed.


Subject(s)
Health Care Reform/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Sector/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Argentina , Chile , Colombia , Health Care Sector/organization & administration , Health Policy , Insurance, Health/economics , National Health Programs/economics , National Health Programs/organization & administration , Private Sector/economics , Public Sector/economics
16.
Article in Dutch | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20677414
17.
Health Serv Res ; 33(5 Pt 2): 1403-19, 1998 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-9865226

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the implications of the rapid transformation of the healthcare financing and delivery system for competition, social welfare, and antitrust policy. PRINCIPAL FINDING: Horizontal and vertical consolidations can enhance efficiency but can also be anticompetitive in markets characterized by entry barriers. RECOMMENDATION: Active enforcement of the antitrust laws is essential to ensure that competition in healthcare markets will lead to procompetitive, rather than anticompetitive effects. However, healthcare antitrust enforcement policy must be flexible enough to allow efficient new forms of organization and practice to emerge.


Subject(s)
Antitrust Laws , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Sector/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Facility Merger/legislation & jurisprudence , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/economics , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/organization & administration , Economic Competition/trends , Efficiency, Organizational , Financial Management/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Facility Merger/economics , Health Facility Merger/organization & administration , Humans , Managed Care Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Social Welfare/trends , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL