Stakeholder perspectives on payment reform in maternity care in the Netherlands: A Q-methodology study.

Based on theoretical notions, there is consensus that alternative payment models to the common fee-for-service model have the potential to improve healthcare quality through increased collaboration and reduced under- and overuse. This is particularly relevant for maternity care in the Netherlands because perinatal mortality rates are relatively high in comparison to other Western countries. Therefore, an experiment with bundled payments for maternity care was initiated in 2017. However, the uptake of this alternative payment model remains low, as also seen in other countries, and fee-for-service models prevail. A deeper understanding of stakeholders' perspectives on payment reform in maternity care is necessary to inform policy makers about the obstacles to implementing alternative payment models and potential ways forward. We conducted a Q-methodology study to explore perspectives of stakeholders (postpartum care managers, midwives, gynecologists, managers, health insurers) in maternity care in the Netherlands on payment reform. Participants were asked to rank a set of statements relevant to payment reform in maternity care and explain their ranking during an interview. Factor analysis was used to identify patterns in the rankings of statements. We identified three distinct perspectives on payment reform in maternity care. One general perspective, broadly supported within the sector, focusing mainly on outcomes, and two complementary perspectives, one focusing more on equality and one focusing more on collaboration. This study shows there is consensus among stakeholders in maternity care in the Netherlands that payment reform is required. However, stakeholders have different views on the purpose and desired design of the payment reform and set different conditions. Working towards payment reform in co-creation with all involved parties may improve the general attitude towards payment reform, may enhance the level of trust among stakeholders, and may contribute to a higher uptake in practice.

Trading patients' choice in providers for quality of maternity care? A discrete choice experiment amongst pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of bundled payment for maternity care, aimed at improving the quality of maternity care, may affect pregnant women's choice in providers of maternity care. This paper describes a Dutch study which examined pregnant women's preferences when choosing a maternity care provider. The study focused on factors that enhance the quality of maternity care versus (restricted) provider choice. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted amongst 611 pregnant women living in the Netherlands using an online questionnaire. The data were analysed with Latent Class Analyses. The outcome measure consisted of stated preferences in the discrete choice experiment. Included factors were: information exchange by care providers through electronic medical records, information provided by midwife, information provided by friends, freedom to choose maternity care provider and travel distance. RESULTS: Four different preference structures were found. In two of those structures, respondents found aspects of the maternity care related to quality of care more important than being able to choose a provider (provider choice). In the two other preference structures, respondents found provider choice more important than aspects related to quality of maternity care. CONCLUSIONS: In a country with presumed high-quality maternity care like the Netherlands, about half of pregnant women prefer being able to choose their maternity care provider over organisational factors that might imply better quality of care. A comparable amount of women find quality-related aspects most important when choosing a maternity care provider and are willing to accept limitations in their choice of provider. These insights are relevant for policy makers in order to be able to design a bundled payment model which justify the preferences of all pregnant women.

Evaluating a Dutch cardiology primary care plus intervention on the Triple Aim outcomes: study design of a practice-based quantitative and qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to deal with the pressures on the health-care system and to guarantee sustainability, changes are needed. This study focuses on a cardiology primary care plus intervention. Primary care plus (PC+) is a new health-care delivery model focused on substitution of specialist care in the hospital setting with specialist care in the primary care setting. The intervention consists of a cardiology PC+ centre in which cardiologists, supported by other health-care professionals, provide consultations in a primary care setting. The PC+ centre aims to improve the health of the population and quality of care as experienced by patients, and reduce the number of referrals to hospital-based outpatient specialist care in order to reduce health-care costs. These aims reflect the Triple Aim principle. Hence, the objectives of the study are to evaluate the cardiology PC+ centre in terms of the Triple Aim outcomes and to evaluate the process of the introduction of PC+. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a practice-based, quantitative study with a longitudinal observational design, and an additional qualitative study to supplement, interpret and improve the quantitative study. The study population of the quantitative part will consist of adult patients (≥18 years) with non-acute and low-complexity cardiology-related health complaints, who will be referred to the cardiology PC+ centre (intervention group) or hospital-based outpatient cardiology care (control group). All eligible patients will be asked to complete questionnaires at three different time points consisting of questions about their demographics, health status and experience of care. Additionally, quantitative data will be collected about health-care utilization and related health-care costs at the PC+ centre and the hospital. The qualitative part, consisting of semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and observations, is designed to evaluate the process as well as to amplify, clarify and explain quantitative results. CONCLUSIONS: This study will evaluate a cardiology PC+ centre using quantitative and supplementary qualitative methods. The findings of both sub-studies will fill a gap in knowledge about the effects of PC+ and in particular whether PC+ is able to pursue the Triple Aim outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR6629 (Data registered: 25-08-2017) (registered retrospectively).

Estimating community health needs against a Triple Aim background: What can we learn from current predictive risk models?

INTRODUCTION: To support providers and commissioners in accurately assessing their local populations' health needs, this study produces an overview of Dutch predictive risk models for health care, focusing specifically on the type, combination and relevance of included determinants for achieving the Triple Aim (improved health, better care experience, and lower costs). METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study combining document analyses, interviews and a Delphi study. Predictive risk models were identified based on a web search and expert input. Participating in the study were Dutch experts in predictive risk modelling (interviews; n=11) and experts in healthcare delivery, insurance and/or funding methodology (Delphi panel; n=15). RESULTS: Ten predictive risk models were analysed, comprising 17 unique determinants. Twelve were considered relevant by experts for estimating community health needs. Although some compositional similarities were identified between models, the combination and operationalisation of determinants varied considerably. CONCLUSIONS: Existing predictive risk models provide a good starting point, but optimally balancing resources and targeting interventions on the community level will likely require a more holistic approach to health needs assessment. Development of additional determinants, such as measures of people's lifestyle and social network, may require policies pushing the integration of routine data from different (healthcare) sources.

Early results from adoption of bundled payment for diabetes care in the Netherlands show improvement in care coordination.

In 2010 a bundled payment system for diabetes care, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care, and vascular risk management was introduced in the Netherlands. Health insurers now pay a single fee to a contracting entity, the care group, to cover all of the primary care needed by patients with these chronic conditions. The initial evaluation of the program indicated that it improved the organization and coordination of care and led to better collaboration among health care providers and better adherence to care protocols. Negative consequences included dominance of the care group by general practitioners, large price variations among care groups that were only partially explained by differences in the amount of care provided, and an administrative burden caused by outdated information and communication technology systems. It is too early to draw conclusions about the effects of the new payment system on the quality or the overall costs of care. However, the introduction of bundled payments might turn out to be a useful step in the direction of risk-adjusted integrated capitation payments for multidisciplinary provider groups offering primary and specialty care to a defined group of patients.