Across OECD countries, healthcare organizations increasingly rely on inter-organizational collaboration (IOC). Yet, systematic insight into the relations across different healthcare sectors is lacking. The aim of this explorative study is twofold. First, to understand how IOC differs across healthcare sectors with regards to characteristics, motives and the role of health policy. Second, to understand which potential effects healthcare executives consider prior to the establishment of the collaborations. For this purpose, a survey was conducted among a representative panel of Dutch healthcare executives from medium-sized or large healthcare organizations. Almost half (n = 344, 48%) of the invited executives participated. Our results suggest that differences in policy changes and institutional developments across healthcare sectors affect the scope and type of IOC: hospitals generally operate in small horizontal collaborations, while larger and more complex mixed and non-horizontal collaborations are more present among nursing homes, disability care and mental care organizations. We find that before establishing IOCs, most healthcare executives conduct a self-assessment including the potential effects of the collaboration. The extensive overview of policy developments, collaboration types and intended outcomes presented in our study offers a useful starting point for a more in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of collaborations among healthcare organizations.
In the Dutch healthcare system, provider competition is used as a tool to improve efficiency. From a competition policy perspective, little is known about how collaboration among healthcare providers contributes to overall patient welfare, and how a balance is achieved between scale benefits and preventing anti-competitive collusion. This paper examines the ex-post effects of a Dutch case study in which three competing hospitals have collaborated to provide high-complexity low-volume cancer surgery, an arrangement that tests the limits of permissibility under the Dutch cartel prohibition. Our preliminary empirical research demonstrated only a modest increase in price and travel time for some of the tumour surgeries. Volume analysis showed that the intended centralization of surgical procedures has not been fully realized. Our findings highlight the importance of a comprehensive self-assessment by the collaborating hospitals to ex-ante assess (potential) efficiencies and antitrust risks. Such self-assessments could benefit from research focused on which collaborations are most appropriate to achieve quality gains. For the ex-post assessment by competition authorities following the cartel prohibition, a more thorough insight into the (long-term) changes in hospital prices, profitability, and quality after collaboration is needed.
Objective: Measuring patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is a challenge in Acute Admission Units (AAUs), where patients present with a variety of pathologies. Generic PROMs may be used to measure the quality of care in this population. The main objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of measuring generic PROMs in a Dutch AAU. Design: Longitudinal cohort study Setting: An AAU of a tertiary hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands Participants: 123 patients admitted to the AAU during 5 weeks in May and June 2015 Methods: Patients admitted to the AAU were asked to fill out a questionnaire relating to three time points: 7 days before, during, and within 2 weeks after admission. Additionally, patients were asked to report on their experienced level of safety on the AAU and the contribution of the AAU to their recovery. Results: There were significant trends in generic PROMs for all three domains. Physical functioning decreased during hospital admission and almost fully returned to the previous level after discharge. Satisfaction with social role and anxiety significantly decreased over time. Conclusions: Measuring generic PROMs in the AAU is feasible. The analysis of the PROMs took little effort and results could be reported back to the healthcare workers on the AAU quickly. Patients appreciated being asked about their own perceived health and the quality of care. Given that this is the first study focusing on PROMs in AAU patients in the Netherlands, future studies with larger sample sizes, and from other nations are needed to further investigate PROMs in this patient group to establish International reference values.
In market-based healthcare systems, due to the high and increasing degree of integration between healthcare providers and purchasers, the enforcement of the cartel prohibition is both important and ever more complex. Competition authorities operate independently, but their approach to enforcement may be influenced by the public and political context. Within the setting of the Dutch healthcare system, we study how the cartel prohibition was enforced between 2004 and 2020 and focus on whether a relationship with public and political attitudes towards competition in healthcare can be observed. Using both qualitative and sentiment analyses, we assessed 38 formal and informal documents issued by the competition authority, 126 written parliamentary questions and almost 1,500 newspaper articles. Our findings reveal that during the first half of the study period (2004–2012), ex-post punitive formal enforcement of violations of the cartel prohibition, such as market-sharing and price-fixing agreements, predominated. During the second half of the study period (2012–2020); however, the competition authority’s focus seems to have shifted toward providing ex-ante informal guidance. We clearly observe negative public and political attitudes towards competition in healthcare as well as a distinct shift in enforcement of the cartel prohibition in Dutch health care. However, we are not able to test for a causal relationship between both observations.
ObjectivesFor oncological care, there is a clear tendency towards centralisation and collaboration aimed at improving patient outcomes. However, in market-based healthcare systems, this trend is related to the potential trade-off between hospital volume and hospital competition. We analyse the association between hospital volume, competition from neighbouring hospitals and outcomes for patients who underwent surgery for invasive breast cancer (IBC).Outcome measuresSurgical margins, 90 days re-excision, overall survival.Design, setting, participantsIn this population-based study, we use data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Our study sample consists of 136 958 patients who underwent surgery for IBC between 2004 and 2014 in the Netherlands.ResultsOur findings show that treatment types as well as patient and tumour characteristics explain most of the variation in all outcomes. After adjusting for confounding variables and intrahospital correlation in multivariate logistic regressions, hospital volume and competition from neighbouring hospitals did not show significant associations with surgical margins and re-excision rates. For patients who underwent surgery in hospitals annually performing 250 surgeries or more, multilevel Cox proportional hazard models show that survival was somewhat higher (HR 0.94). Survival in hospitals with four or more (potential) competitors within 30 km was slightly higher (HR 0.97). However, this effect did not hold after changing this proxy for hospital competition.ConclusionsBased on the selection of patient outcomes, hospital volume and regional competition appear to play only a limited role in the explanation of variation in IBC outcomes across Dutch hospitals. Further research into hospital variation for high-volume tumours like the one studied here is recommended to (i) use consistently measured quality indicators that better reflect multidisciplinary clinical practice and patient and provider decision-making, (ii) include more sophisticated measures for hospital competition and (iii) assess the entire process of care within the hospital, as well as care provided by other providers in cancer networks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.