Ageing and the Challenge to Finance Health Care in Europe: An Overview and Innovations Reinhard Busse, Prof. Dr. med. MPH FFPH FG Management im Gesundheitswesen, Technische Universität Berlin (WHO Collaborating Centre for Health Systems Research and Management) & European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies
The ageing of the population: an example The price of success? An ageing crisis? Compression of morbidity Longer and healthier life expectancy "Living longer and dying faster Reduced cost of dying at older ages Lower life time health costs by the healthier Drawing less from health services Contributing for longer: late retirement $1,227 savings calculated to Czech government each time a smoker dies Report from Philip Morris
The good news: We get older, because we are healthier (even though some still have doubts)
Separating the (high) costs of dying from overall health-care costs shows a more modest picture
Public health spending: exp. growth rates/ year 1971-2002 [* from 1981] Age effect Income effect Other factors Total spending Australia (to 2001 only) 0.5 1.7 1.7 (1.4)* 4.0 (3.6)* Austria 0.2 2.5 1.5 (0.0)* 4.2 (2.2)* Belgium (from 1995 only) 0.4 2.2 0.6 2.9 Canada 0.6 2.1 0.4 (0.6)* 3.1 (2.6)* Denmark 0.2 1.6 0.1 (-0.5)* 1.9 (1.3)* Finland 0.6 2.4 0.5 (0.2)* 3.4 (2.6)* France 0.3 1.9 1.6 (1.0)* 3.9 (2.8)* Germany 0.3 1.6 1.9 (1.0)* 3.7 (2.2)* Greece (from 1987 only) 0.4 2.1 0.8 3.4 Ireland 0.0 4.4 0.9 (-1.0)* 5.3 (3.9)* Italy (from 1988 only) 0.7 2.2-0.1 2.1 Japan (to 2001 only) 0.6 2.6 1.8 (1.1)* 4.9 (3.8)* Luxembourg (from1975 only) 0.0 3.3 0.7 (-0.1)* 4.2 (3.8)* Netherlands (from 1972 only) 0.4 2.0 0.9 (0.3)* 3.3 (2.6)* New Zealand 0.2 1.2 1.4 (1.0)* 2.9 (2.7)* Norway 0.1 3.0 2.2 (1.5)* 5.4 (4.0)* Portugal 0.5 2.9 4.4 (2.8)* 8.0 (5.9)* Spain 0.4 2.4 2.5 (0.8)* 5.4 (3.4)* Sweden 0.3 1.6 0.7 (-0.4)* 2.5 (1.5)* Only 1/10th 1/3rd and modifiable Switzerland (from 1985 only) 0.2 0.9 2.9 3.8 United Kingdom 0.1 2.1 1.5 (1.0)* 3.8 (3.4)* United States 0.3 2.1 2.7 (2.6)* 5.1 (4.7)* Average 0.4 (0.3)* 2.5 (2.3)* 1.5 (1.0)* 4.3 (3.6)*
Third-party Payer Population Providers: hospitals, primary care etc.
Collector of resources Third-party payer: Local Health Authorities; Health insurance funds Steward/ regulator Population Providers: hospitals, primary care etc.
Resource pooling & allocation Population Collector of Mobilizing financial resources Coverage: Who? What? How much? resources Functions Steward/ regulator Regulation Third-party payer Purchasing (via contracts)/ payment Access to Providers and provision of services Creating human & technical resources
sickness funds private insurers Third-party Payer health authorities prepaid public Population Taxes Social Health Insurance contributions Voluntary insurance Out-of-pocket Providers Issue 1: Finding the right funding mix
Third-party Payer Taxes 24% 25% public Social Health Insurance contributions 1% Voluntary insurance 1% Population Out-of-pocket 69% Providers India 2006
Third-party Payer Taxes 33% 46% public Social Health Insurance contributions 13% Voluntary insurance 36% Population Out-of-pocket 13% Providers USA 2006
Third-party Payer Taxes 39% 77% public Social Health Insurance contributions 38% Voluntary insurance 5% Population Out-of-pocket 14% Providers High income (excl. US) 2006
The more public (less private) the better? Yes, for equity % households bankrupt due to health expenditure % of households with catastrophic (>40% of income) total health expenditure 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 S IS N DK UK D FIN F P E B CDN ROK USA 10 20 30 40 50 60 Private expenditure on health as % of total expenditure on health (2002) CH GR inequitable SHI TAX MIXED % private
Out-of-pocket 1990-2006: a mixed picture 70 decreasing % of total expenditure on health in 1990 60 58.7 % of total expenditure on health, latest available year (2006, unless otherwise noted) Difference between 1990 and 2002 50 40 increasing 35.9 35.7 30 30.3 20 10 0 20.1 12.8-7.3-5.4 11.4 6.7-4.7 16.5 16 15.3 14.3 15.1 12.4-4.1 8.4 7.8-1.7-0.6-0.2 14.4 14.4 10.6 11 15.6 14.6 18.2 16.6 16.5 14.9 13 11.1 6.5 5.5 1 1 1.6 0 0.4 1.6 2.8 3.2 4.1 1.9 2.7 14.5 17.2 18.7 21.5 15.5 18.7 13.4 17.5 15.4 20.4 5 9 15 6-10 Korea United States Switzerland b) France Ireland Denmark Netherlands b),c) Japan Canada d) United Kingdom e) Norway Luxembourg b) Australia Austria f) Germany New Zealand c) Spain Finland Iceland d) Italy d) Sweden g) -20-22.8-30 Italy
Collector of resources Third-party payer Steward/ regulator Purchasing (via contracts)/ payment Population Providers Issue 2: Making payers and providers accountable for need, costs, quality
Reform trends purchasers NHS: development of purchasers through purchaser/provider split purchasers = regions, health authorities, primary care trusts providers = autonomous institutions (responsible for their own staff) SHI: transformation of sickness funds from payers to active purchasers
Reform trends changing the way hospitals (and other providers) are paid Fee-for-service * Ill patients usually attractive * Over-provision of Services * Under-referral * No incentive for high quality USA DRGs (per case) * Very ill patients (within DRG) not attractive * Tendency to average provision * Contradictory weak incentives Budget * (ill) Patients not attractive * Under-provision of services * Over-referral * Quality: bad results -> more work Europe
Reform trends changing the way hospitals (and other providers) are paid Fee-for-service * Ill patients usually attractive * Over-provision of Services * Under-referral * No incentive for high quality DRGs (per case) * Very ill patients (within DRG) not attractive * Tendency to average provision * Contradictory weak incentives Budget * (ill) Patients not attractive * Under-provision of services * Over-referral * Quality: bad results -> more work No incentives for appropriate continuity of care across providers Quality indicators, transparency & pay-for-performance Managed care
So then, why DRGs? To get a common currency of hospital activity for transparency performance measurement efficiency benchmarking, budget allocation (or division among purchasers), planning of capacities, payment ( efficiency)
For what types of activities? Scope of DRGs the DRG house Excluded costs, e.g. investments e.g. teaching, research Other activities e.g. psychiatric or foreign patients Patients excluded from DRG system e.g. high-cost services or innovations Unbundled activities for DRG patients Possibly mixed with global budget or FFS DRGs for acute Inpatient care Day cases Outpatient clinics
Being aware of strategic behaviour of hospitals in times of DRGs Revenues Costs/ Options to avoid deficits under DRGs Increase revenues (right-/ up-coding; negotiate extra payments) Total costs Reduce costs (personnel, cheaper technologies) DRG-type payment Reduce LOS LOS
How DRG systems try to counter-act such behaviour: 1. long- and short-stay adjustments Revenues Short-stay outliers Inliers Long-stay outliers Deductions (per day) Surcharges (per day) LOS Lower LOS threshold Upper LOS threshold
How DRG systems try to counter-act such behaviour: 2. Fee-for-service-type additional payments England France Germany Netherlands Payments per hospital stay Payments for specific highcost services Innovationrelated add l payments One One One Several possible Unbundled HRGs for e.g.: Chemotherapy Radiotherapy Renal dialysis Diagnostic imaging High-cost drugs Séances GHM for e.g.: Chemotherapy Radiotherapy Renal dialysis Additional payments: ICU Emergency care High-cost drugs Supplementary payments for e.g.: Chemotherapy Radiotherapy Renal dialysis Diagnostic imaging High-cost drugs Yes Yes Yes Yes (for drugs) No
How DRG systems try to counter-act such behaviour: 3. adjustments for quality England & Germany: no extra payment if patient readmitted within 30 days Germany: deduction for not submitting quality data England: up 1.5% reduction if quality standards are not met France: extra payments for quality improvement (e.g. regarding MRSA)
Traditional forms of paying GPs (until early 2000s) Paying family doctors the old way France Germany Netherlands England Sweden PHI: FFS FFS FFS (regionally capped) Capitation Salary SHI: Capitation
Payment components in GP care Paying family doctors the new way France Germany Netherlands England Sweden Objective: appropriateness & outcomes Quality payment CAPI bonus QOF bonus Bonus and/or Malus Objective: productivity & patient needs Objective: admin. simplicity & costcontainment (& geogr. equity) Extra service payment Basic service payment ADL payment FFS FFS DMP payment FFS with caps per service type RLV (capped FFS) FFS (per visit & outof-hours) Capitation FFS ( enhanced services ) Capitation FFS (per visit) Capitation
Conclusions For GP payment, countries are moving toward a European model consisting of: (1) Capitation (inscription)/ capped FFS (visittriggered) to pay for providing basic services; (2) special lump sums for specific patient groups (if capitation is not sufficiently risk-adjusted) + FFS for (potentially) underprovided services and/or requiring special expertise or technology; (3) quality-related bonus (or malus) for (not) reaching certain targets. 60% 20-30% 10-20%
Examples of new payment measures year of care payment for the complete service package required by individuals with chronic conditions (DK) Per patient bonus for physicians for acting as gatekeepers for chronic patients and for setting care protocols (F) bonus for DMP recruitment and documentation (D) 1% of overall health budget available for integrated care (D) bonuses for reaching structural, process and outcome targets (UK) pay-for-performance bonuses (US)
Population ageing Strengthen the health systems response Improved management of chronic conditions Coordination / integration of care Focus on primary prevention (tobacco, alcohol,..) Support healthy ageing, e.g. fall prevention programmes
Presentation available at: www.mig.tu-berlin.de www.healthobservatory.eu