Bismarck's Health Insurance Act of 1883 established the first social health insurance system in the world. The German statutory health insurance system was built on the defining principles of solidarity and self-governance, and these principles have remained at the core of its continuous development for 135 years. A gradual expansion of population and benefits coverage has led to what is, in 2017, universal health coverage with a generous benefits package. Self-governance was initially applied mainly to the payers (the sickness funds) but was extended in 1913 to cover relations between sickness funds and doctors, which in turn led to the right for insured individuals to freely choose their health-care providers. In 1993, the freedom to choose one's sickness fund was formally introduced, and reforms that encourage competition and a strengthened market orientation have gradually gained importance in the past 25 years; these reforms were designed and implemented to protect the principles of solidarity and self-governance. In 2004, self-governance was strengthened through the establishment of the Federal Joint Committee, a major payer-provider structure given the task of defining uniform rules for access to and distribution of health care, benefits coverage, coordination of care across sectors, quality, and efficiency. Under the oversight of the Federal Joint Committee, payer and provider associations have ensured good access to high-quality health care without substantial shortages or waiting times. Self-governance has, however, led to an oversupply of pharmaceutical products, an excess in the number of inpatient cases and hospital stays, and problems with delivering continuity of care across sectoral boundaries. The German health insurance system is not as cost-effective as in some of Germany's neighbouring countries, which, given present expenditure levels, indicates a need to improve efficiency and value for patients.

England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden spend less as a share of gross domestic product on hospital care than the United States while delivering high-quality services. All five European countries have hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) that classify patients of similar clinical characteristics and comparable costs. Inspired by Medicare's inpatient prospective payment system, which originated the use of DRGs, European DRG systems have implemented different design options and are generally more detailed than Medicare's system, to better distinguish among patients with less and more complex conditions. Incentives to treat more cases are often counterbalanced by volume ceilings in European DRG systems. European payments are usually broader in scope than those in the United States, including physician salaries and readmissions. These European systems, discussed in more detail in the article, suggest potential innovations for reforming DRG-based hospital payment in the United States.

This article maps current approaches to public reporting on waiting times, patient experience and aggregate measures of quality and safety in 11 high-income countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States). Using a questionnaire-based survey of key national informants, we found that the data most commonly made available to the public are on waiting times for hospital treatment, being reported for major hospitals in seven countries. Information on patient experience at hospital level is also made available in many countries, but it is not generally available in respect of primary care services. Only one of the 11 countries (England) publishes composite measures of overall quality and safety of care that allow the ranking of providers of hospital care. Similarly, the publication of information on outcomes of individual physicians remains rare. We conclude that public reporting of aggregate measures of quality and safety, as well as of outcomes of individual physicians, remain relatively uncommon. This is likely to be due to both unresolved methodological and ethical problems and concerns that public reporting may lead to unintended consequences.

No abstract