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.

Observational Data for Integrated Maternity Care: Experiences with a Data-Infrastructure for Parents and Children in the Netherlands.

Introduction: Observational data are increasingly seen as a valuable source for integrated care research. Especially since the growing availability of routinely collected data and quasi-experimental methods. The aim of this paper is to describe the potentials and challenges when using observational data for integrated maternity care research, based on our experience from developing and working with the Data-InfrAstructure for ParEnts and childRen (DIAPER). Methods and Results: We provide a description of DIAPER, which is a linked data-infrastructure on the individual level based on maternity care claims data, quality and utilization of maternity care and data from municipal registries, covering the life course from preconception to adulthood. We then discuss potentials and practical applications of DIAPER such as to evaluate alternative payment models for integrated maternity care, to set the policy agenda regarding postpartum care, to provide insights into value of care and into provider variation, and to evaluate (policy) interventions designed to promote and support integrated maternity care. This is relevant for several stakeholders: policy makers, payers, providers and clients/patients. Based on experiences with DIAPER, we identify remaining challenges: missing data sources (especially self-reported outcomes), suboptimal quality of data, privacy concerns and potential biases introduced during data linkage, and describe how these challenges were tackled within the applications of DIAPER. Conclusions: With DIAPER we demonstrated that using observational data can be of added value for integrated care research, but also that challenges remain. It is essential to keep exploring and developing the possibilities of observational data and continue the discussions in the scientific community. Learning from each other's successes and failures will be critical.

A Scoping Review of Alternative Payment Models in Maternity Care: Insights in Key Design Elements and Effects on Health and Spending.

INTRODUCTION: Although effects of alternative payment models on health outcomes and health spending are unclear, they are increasingly implemented in maternity care. We aimed to provide an overview of alternative payment models implemented in maternity care, describing their key design elements among which the type of APM, the care providers that participate in the model, populations and care services that are included and the applied risk mitigation strategies. Next to that, we made an inventory of the empirical evidence on the effects of APMs on maternal and neonatal health outcomes and spending on maternity care. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases for articles published from January 2007 through October 2020. Search key words included 'alternative payment model', 'value based payment model', 'obstetric', 'maternity'. English or Dutch language articles were included if they described or empirically evaluated initiatives implementing alternative payment models in maternity care in high-income countries. Additional relevant documents were identified through reference tracking. We systematically analyzed the initiatives found and examined the evidence regarding health outcomes and health spending. The process was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) to ensure validity and reliability. RESULTS: We identified 17 initiatives that implemented alternative payment models in maternity care. Thirteen in the United States, two in the United Kingdom, one in New Zealand and one in the Netherlands. Within these initiatives three types of alternative payment models were implemented; pay-for-performance (n = 2), shared savings models (n = 7) and bundled payment models (n = 8). Alternative payment models that shifted more financial accountability towards providers seemed to include more strategies that mitigated those risks. Risk mitigation strategies were applied to the included population, included services or at the level of total expenditures. Of these seventeen initiatives, we found four empirical effect studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Three of them were of moderate quality and one weak. Two studies described an association of the alternative payment model with an improvement of specific health outcomes and two studies described a reduction in medical spending. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that key design elements of alternative payment models including risk mitigation strategies vary highly. Risk mitigation strategies seem to be relevant tools to increase APM uptake and protect providers from (initially) bearing too much (perceived) financial risk. Empirical evidence on the effects of APMs on health outcomes and spending is still limited. A clear definition of key design elements and a further, in-depth, understanding of key design elements and how they operate into different health settings is required to shape payment reform that aligns with its goals.