The Dutch Public Health Foresight Study 2018: an example of a comprehensive foresight exercise.

BACKGROUND: The use of foresight studies is common in some policy fields, but not in public health. Interest in such studies is growing. This paper gives a general overview of the Dutch Public Health Foresight Study (PHFS) 2018, providing insight into what performing a broad scenario exercise in the field of public health entails and its societal impacts. METHODS: The aim of the PHFS-2018 was: (a) to show how public health and healthcare in the Netherlands will develop over the next 25 years if we pursue our current course and detect 'new' developments; (b) to give options for dealing with the major future societal challenges. Part a was addressed by means of a quantitative business-as-usual scenario exercise complemented with qualitative thematic studies, and part b by elaborating courses of action for three key challenges, based on stakeholder consultation. Typical aspects of the PHFS methods are a multidisciplinary, participatory and conceptual approach and using a broad definition of health. RESULTS: The PHFS-2018 is the basis for the upcoming National Health Policy Memorandum and the Trend Scenario is the baseline for the National Prevention Agreement. Unexpectedly, the findings about increasing mental pressure in young people received most attention. There still is room for expanding use of the study to its full potential. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term thinking could be stimulated by using back casting techniques and stronger involvement of policy-makers in the elaboration of options for action. Lessons learned from developing intersectoral policy at the local level could be applied at the national level.

Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence.

Calls for evidence-informed public health policy-making often ignore that there are multiple, and often competing, bodies of potentially relevant evidence to which policy-makers have recourse in identifying policy priorities and taking decisions. In this paper, we illustrate how policy frames may favour the use of specific bodies of evidence. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight report (2014), possible future trends in population health and healthcare expenditure were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify and formulate the most important societal challenges for the Dutch health system. Working with these stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four normative perspectives on public health. These perspectives can be regarded as policy frames. In each of the perspectives, a specific body of evidence is favoured and other types of evidence are neglected. Crucial outcomes in one body may be regarded as irrelevant from other perspectives. Consequently, the results of research from a single body of evidence may not be helpful in the policy-making processes because policy-makers need to account for trade-offs between all competing interests and values. To support these policy processes, researchers need to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address different outcomes from the start of their studies. We feel it is time for the research community to re-politicise the idea of evidence use and for policy-makers to demand research that helps them to account for all health-related policy goals. This is a prerequisite for real evidence-informed policy-making.

Can universal access be achieved in a voluntary private health insurance market? Dutch private insurers caught between competing logics.

For almost a century, the Netherlands was marked by a large market for voluntary private health insurance alongside state-regulated social health insurance. Throughout this period, private health insurers tried to safeguard their position within an expanding welfare state. From an institutional logics perspective, we analyze how private health insurers tried to reconcile the tension between a competitive insurance market pressuring for selective underwriting and actuarially fair premiums (the insurance logic), and an upcoming welfare state pressuring for universal access and socially fair premiums (the welfare state logic). Based on primary sources and the extant historiography, we distinguish six periods in which the balance between both logics changed significantly. We identify various strategies employed by private insurers to reconcile the competing logics. Some of these were temporarily successful, but required measures that were incompatible with the idea of free entrepreneurship and consumer choice. We conclude that universal access can only be achieved in a competitive individual private health insurance market if this market is effectively regulated and mandatory cross-subsidies are effectively enforced. The Dutch case demonstrates that achieving universal access in a competitive private health insurance market is institutionally complex and requires broad political and societal support.

The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040.

Policy-oriented foresight reports aim to inform and advise decision-makers. In value-laden areas such as public health and healthcare, deliberative scenario methods are clearly needed. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Forecasts-report (PHSF-2014), a new approach of co-creation was developed aiming to incorporate different societal norms and values in the description of possible future developments. The major future trends in the Netherlands were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify the most important societal challenges for public health and healthcare. Four societal challenges were identified: 1) To keep people healthy as long as possible and cure illness promptly, 2) To support vulnerable people and enable social participation, 3) To promote individual autonomy and freedom of choice, and 4) To keep health care affordable. Working with stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four corresponding normative scenarios. In a survey the normative scenarios were found to be recognizable and sufficiently distinctive. We organized meetings with experts to explore how engagement and policy strategies in each scenario would affect the other three societal challenges. Possible synergies and trade-offs between the four scenarios were identified. Public health foresight based on a business-as-usual scenario and normative scenarios is clearly practicable. The process and the outcomes support and elucidate a wide range of strategic discussions in public health.