Literature DB >> 30685212

Cure for increasing health care costs: The Bernhoven case as driver of new standards of appropriate care.

Nicoline van Leersum1, Peter Bennemeer2, Marcel Otten3, Sander Visser4, Ab Klink5, Jan A M Kremer6.   

Abstract

Containing costs is a major challenge in health care. Cost and quality are often seen as trade-offs, but high quality and low costs can go hand-in-hand as waste exists in unnecessary and unfounded care. In the Netherlands, two healthcare insurers and a hospital collaborate to improve quality of care and decrease healthcare costs. Their aim is to reduce unnecessary care by shifting the business model and culture from a focus on volume to a focus on quality. Key drivers to support this are taking time for integrated diagnosis ('first time right'), the right care at the right place and shared decision making between doctor and patient. Conditions to realize this are 1) contract innovation between the hospital and insurers to move away from fee-for-service reimbursement, 2) a culture change within the organization with emphasis on collaboration and empowerment of medical leadership and physicians to change daily practice, and 3) a reorganization of the hospital organization structure from a large number of medical departments to four business units related to the fundamental underlying patient need (acute care, solution shop, intervention unit and chronic care). Results from this whole-system-approach experiment show it is possible to provide better care (as experienced by patients) with lower volumes (16% lower DRG claims after 3 years) and provides valuable lessons for further healthcare reform.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Care networks; Collaboration; Cost savings; Culture; Hospital; Insurance company; Organizational structure; Quality; Quality improvement

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30685212     DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.01.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  4 in total

Review 1.  Shared decision-making in urology and female pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  David A Ossin; Emily C Carter; Rufus Cartwright; Philippe D Violette; Shilpa Iyer; Geraldine T Klein; Sangeeta Senapati; Zachary Klaassen; Sylvia M Botros
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  One-year results after transitioning from etanercept originator to biosimilar in a setting promoting shared decision-making in rheumatology.

Authors:  Wieland D Müskens; Sanne A A Rongen-van Dartel; Steven Teerenstra; Eddy M M Adang; Piet L C M van Riel
Journal:  Rheumatol Adv Pract       Date:  2020-08-06

3.  Evaluation of a shared decision-making strategy with online decision aids in surgical and orthopaedic practice: study protocol for the E-valuAID, a multicentre study with a stepped-wedge design.

Authors:  Floris M Thunnissen; Bernhard W Schreurs; Carmen S S Latenstein; Marjan J Meinders; Eddy M Adang; Glyn Elwyn; Doeke Boersma; Bas Bosmans; Koop Bosscha; Bastiaan L Ginsel; Eric J Hazebroek; Jeroen J Nieuwenhuis; Maarten Staarink; Dries Verhallen; Marc L Wagener; Femke Atsma; Philip R de Reuver
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.796

4.  What matters most to patients with severe aortic stenosis when choosing treatment? Framing the conversation for shared decision making.

Authors:  Nananda F Col; Diana Otero; Brian R Lindman; Aaron Horne; Melissa M Levack; Long Ngo; Kimberly Goodloe; Susan Strong; Elvin Kaplan; Melissa Beaudry; Megan Coylewright
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 3.752

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.