How managed a market? Modes of commissioning in England and Germany.

BACKGROUND: In quasi-markets governance over healthcare providers is mediated by commissioners. Different commissioners apply different combinations of six methods of control ('media of power') for exercising governance: managerial performance, negotiation, discursive control, incentives, competition and juridical control. This paper compares how English and German healthcare commissioners do so. METHODS: Systematic comparison of observational national-level case studies in terms of six media of power, using data from multiple sources. RESULTS: The comparison exposes and contrasts two basic generic modes of commissioning: 1. Surrogate planning (English NHS), in which a negotiated order involving micro-commissioning, provider competition, financial incentives and penalties are the dominant media of commissioner power over providers. 2. Case-mix commissioning (Germany), in which managerial performance, an 'episode based' negotiated order and juridical controls appear the dominant media of commissioner power. CONCLUSIONS: Governments do not necessarily maximise commissioners' power over providers by implementing as many media of power as possible because these media interact, some complementing and others inhibiting each other. In particular, patient choice of provider inhibits commissioners' use of provider competition as a means of control.

The practice of commissioning healthcare from a private provider: learning from an in-depth case study.

BACKGROUND: The direction of health service policy in England is for more diversification in the design, commissioning and provision of health care services. The case study which is the subject of this paper was selected specifically because of the partnering with a private sector organisation to manage whole system redesign of primary care and to support the commissioning of services for people with long term conditions at risk of unplanned hospital admissions and associated service provision activities. The case study forms part of a larger Department of Health funded project on the practice of commissioning which aims to find the best means of achieving a balance between monitoring and control on the one hand, and flexibility and innovation on the other, and to find out what modes of commissioning are most effective in different circumstances and for different services. METHODS: A single case study method was adopted to explore multiple perspectives of the complexities and uniqueness of a public-private partnership referred to as the "Livewell project". 10 single depth interviews were carried out with key informants across the GP practices, the PCT and the private provider involved in the initiative. RESULTS: The main themes arising from single depth interviews with the case study participants include a particular understanding about the concept of commissioning in the context of primary care, ambitions for primary care redesign, the importance of key roles and strong relationships, issues around the adoption and spread of innovation, and the impact of the current changes to commissioning arrangements. The findings identified a close and high trust relationship between GPs (the commissioners) and the private commissioning support and provider firm. The antecedents to the contract for the project being signed indicated the importance of leveraging external contacts and influence (resource dependency theory). CONCLUSIONS: The study has surfaced issues around innovation adoption in the healthcare context. The case identifies 'negotiated order', managerial performance of providers and disciplinary control as three media of power used in combination by commissioners. The case lends support for stewardship and resource dependency governance theories as explanations of the underpinning conditions for effective commissioning in certain circumstances within a quasi marketised healthcare system.

Healthcare board governance.

PURPOSE: In the light of failings of the board highlighted by the mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry, this paper seeks to offer insights about how boards in general might develop in order to discharge their responsibilities for quality and safety in health care more consistently in the future. The paper also proposes to examine wider questions about the role, purpose, and impact of boards on organisations. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The paper draws on literature from across the social sciences to assess the evidence for effective board working using a contingency and realist approach. FINDINGS: The examination leads to the identification of three key issues surrounding the construction and the development of boards. First, there is no evidence or consensus about an "ideal" board form. The rationale and evidence-base, for example for the 1991 model for NHS boards in the English NHS, has never been set out in an adequate manner. Second, the evidence about effective board working suggests that there are some key principles but also that local circumstances are really important in steering the focus and behaviours of effective boards. Third, there is an emerging proposition that boards, including in healthcare, need to embody a culture of high trust across the executive and non executive divide, together with robust challenge, and a tight grip on the business of delivering high quality patient care in a financially sustainable way (high trust - high challenge - high engagement). ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper argues that it is advisable to move away from a tendency to faith-based and exhortative approaches to guidance, training and development of boards and that it is time for a root-and-branch inquiry into the composition, structure, processes and dynamics of healthcare boards in the interests of assuring patient safety.

How healthcare systems shape a purchaser's strategies and actions when managing chronic care.

Healthcare purchasing organisations in both insurance-based and tax-based healthcare systems struggle to improve chronic care. A key challenge for purchasers is to deal with the chain of multiple providers involved in caring for patients with complex needs. To date, most research has focused on differences between healthcare systems in terms of regulation, tools and the freedom that healthcare purchasers have. However, this does not explain how such different healthcare system characteristics lead to different purchasing strategies and actions. A better understanding of this link between system characteristics and purchaser behaviour would assist policymakers seeking to improve healthcare purchasing. This multiple case study conducted in England, Sweden and the Netherlands examines the link between the different healthcare systems' characteristics and the purchasers' strategies and actions when managing chronic care chains. Purchasers' strategies and actions varied in terms of the purchaser's engagement, strategic lens and influencing style. Our findings suggest that differences in purchaser competition, purchaser governance and patient choice in healthcare systems are key factors in explaining a purchaser's strategies and actions when pursuing improvements in chronic care. This study contributes to knowledge on what shapes the purchaser's role, and shows how policymakers in both insurance- and tax-based regimes can improve healthcare purchasing.

Managerial workarounds in three European DRG systems.

PURPOSE: Attempts to transform health systems have in many countries involved starting to pay healthcare providers through a DRG system, but that has involved managerial workarounds. Managerial workarounds have seldom been analysed. This paper does so by extending and modifying existing knowledge of the causes and character of clinical and IT workarounds, to produce a conceptualisation of the managerial workaround. It further develops and revises this conceptualisation by comparing the practical management, at both provider and purchaser levels, of hospital DRG payment systems in England, Germany and Italy. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We make a qualitative test of our initial assumptions about the antecedents, character and consequences of managerial workarounds by comparing them with a systematic comparison of case studies of the DRG hospital payment systems in England, Germany and Italy. The data collection through key informant interviews (N = 154), analysis of policy documents (N = 111) and an action learning set, began in 2010-12, with additional data collection from key informants and administrative documents continuing in 2018-19 to supplement and update our findings. FINDINGS: Managers in all three countries developed very similar workarounds to contain healthcare costs to payers. To weaken DRG incentives to increase hospital activity, managers agreed to lower DRG payments for episodes of care above an agreed case-load 'ceiling' and reduced payments by less than the full DRG amounts when activity fell below an agreed 'floor' volume. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Empirically this study is limited to three OECD health systems, but since our findings come from both Bismarckian (social-insurance) and Beveridge (tax-financed) systems, they are likely to be more widely applicable. In many countries, DRGs coexist with non-DRG or pre-DRG systems, so these findings may also reflect a specific, perhaps transient, stage in DRG-system development. Probably there are also other kinds of managerial workaround, yet to be researched. Doing so would doubtlessly refine and nuance the conceptualisation of the 'managerial workaround' still further. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: In the case of DRGs, the managerial workarounds were instances of 'constructive deviance' which enabled payers to reduce the adverse financial consequences, for them, arising from DRG incentives. The understanding of apparent failures or part-failures to transform a health system can be made more nuanced, balanced and diagnostic by using the concept of the 'managerial workaround'. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Managerial workarounds also appear outside the health sector, so the present analysis of managerial workarounds may also have application to understanding attempts to transform such sectors as education, social care and environmental protection. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: So far as we are aware, no other study presents and tests the concept of a 'managerial workaround'. Pervasive, non-trivial managerial workarounds may be symptoms of mismatched policy objectives, or that existing health system structures cannot realise current policy objectives; but the workarounds themselves may also contain solutions to these problems.

Long-term care. Unknown quantities.

A small study of nursing home owners, managers, residents and relatives found effective management depended on strong leadership skills, high bed occupancy, enthusiastic staff and low staff turnover. Funding problems were a key issue for homes, creating massive insecurity for residents, relatives and staff. There was a feeling that nursing homes could be used more effectively by the NHS, but there were concerns about capacity and competence. The viability of homes would be improved by annual block booking by the NHS. This would also facilitate the development of intermediate care. A national development programme for nursing home managers is needed.

US-style commissioning. Raising Arizona.

Strategic health authorities can learn a lot about strategic vision from Arizona's healthcare cost containment system. The Arizona commissioners have greater power than primary care trusts to push through new and more effective models of community care. Commissioner/provider relations can be fraught as health plans hold out for big discounts.

Emergency planning and management in health care: priority research topics.

Many major incidents have significant impacts on people's health, placing additional demands on health-care organisations. The main aim of this paper is to suggest a prioritised agenda for organisational and management research on emergency planning and management relevant to U.K. health care, based on a scoping study. A secondary aim is to enhance knowledge and understanding of health-care emergency planning among the wider research community, by highlighting key issues and perspectives on the subject and presenting a conceptual model. The study findings have much in common with those of previous U.S.-focused scoping reviews, and with a recent U.K.-based review, confirming the relative paucity of U.K.-based research. No individual research topic scored highly on all of the key measures identified, with communities and organisations appearing to differ about which topics are the most important. Four broad research priorities are suggested: the affected public; inter- and intra-organisational collaboration; preparing responders and their organisations; and prioritisation and decision making.

Assessing governance theory and practice in health-care organizations: a survey of UK hospices.

This paper sets out a theoretical framework for analyzing board governance, and describes an empirical study of corporate governance practices in a subset of non-profit organizations (hospices in the UK). It examines how practices in hospice governance compare with what is known about effective board working. We found that key strengths of hospice boards included a strong focus on the mission and the finances of the organizations, and common weaknesses included a lack of involvement in strategic matters and a lack of confidence, and some nervousness about challenging the organization on the quality of clinical care. Finally, the paper offers suggestions for theoretical development particularly in relation to board governance in non-profit organizations. It develops an engagement theory for boards which comprises a triadic proposition of high challenge, high support and strong grip.

Perspectives on the enablers of e-heath adoption: an international interview study of leading practitioners.

Studies examining the application of information technology to the delivery of health-care services often highlight the anticipated benefits. In consequence, the benefits of health-care information technology adoption, often referred to as 'e-health', are widely reported yet there is limited empirical evidence as to how such benefits can be realized. Design and implementation guidelines have been considered from a socio-technical perspective and there is support for the successful application of these principles. There are also some global surveys on the topic, but these often report only statistical data and lack richness of content. This study draws on existing literature to examine whether the principles of health-care information technology adoption are currently applied in practice. The paper presents a timely international analysis of the drivers, critical enablers and successful deployment strategies for e-health from the perspective of leading practitioners. The study considers the adoption of e-health in 15 countries. A qualitative research design was used and semistructured interviews were conducted with 38 thought leaders with expertise in health-care information systems and technology. The study presents a comparative analysis of the lessons learned from implementing, integrating and embedding e-health in practice, and presents a four-phase approach from the perspective of practitioners for the accelerated deployment of e-health systems: (i) develop a strategic approach, (ii) engage the workforce, (iii) capitalize on information technology and (iv) partner with the patient/citizen.