Introduction of safety and quality standards for private health care providers: a case-study from the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

BackgroundRegulation of private health care providers (PHPs) in middle-income countries can be challenging. Mandatory safety and quality standards for PHPs have been in place in the Republic of Srpska since 2012, but not all PHPs have adopted them yet. Adoption rates have differed among different types of providers. We studied three predominant types of PHPs to determine why the rate of adoption of the standards varies among them.MethodsThis study used a mixed methods approach, which allowed the integration of both quantitative and qualitative data, to develop an explanatory case study. The case study covered three types of private PHPs: pharmacies, dental practices and specialist practices. Primary data were collected through face-to-face semi-structured in-depth interviews and a self-administered postal survey of private health care providers. Our study’s theoretical framework was based on the diffusion of innovation theory.ResultsThe rate of adoption of mandatory standards varied among different types of PHP mainly due to four factors: (1) level of concern about negative financial consequences, such as the risk of fines or of losing contracts with the Health Insurance Fund of the Republic of Srpska; (2) availability of information on the standards and implementation process; (3) level of the relevant professional association’s support for the introduction of standards; and (4) provider’s perceptions of the relevant health chamber’s attitude toward the standards. Opinions conveyed to PHPs by peers slightly negatively influenced adoption of the standards at the attitude-forming stage. Perceived gains in professional status did not have a major influence on the decision to adopt standards. All three types of PHPs perceived the same disadvantages of the introduction of safety and quality standards: associated expense, increased administrative burden and disruption of service provision.ConclusionsWhen introducing mandatory quality and safety standards for PHPs, national health authorities need to: ensure adequate availability of information on the relative advantages of adhering to standards; support the introduction of standards with relevant incentives and penalties; and work in partnership with relevant professional associations and health chambers to get their buy-in for regulation of quality and safety of health services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-018-0806-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Moving towards universal health coverage: engaging non-state providers

“…The seventh paper, a study by Rakic et al [ 19 ] on Bosnia-Herzegovina, sheds light on some of the challenges entailed in regulating NSPs in a setting characterized by limited government enforcement capacity. They describe a mechanism designed to certify provider compliance with mandatory safety and quality standards, which has been in place since 2012, and examine why providers do or do not adopt.…”

Contracting non-state providers for universal health coverage: learnings from Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe

“…Bosnia and Herzegovina presents a country at the relatively high end of the universal coverage spectrum [ 17 ]. The country has widespread coverage of health services and relies on NSPs, who are engaged through the national social health insurance program.…”

“…Ensuring that NSPs comply with quality standards requires government involvement. In Bosnia & Herzegovina, a certification regulation was introduced in 2009 by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare to improve safety, trust, and quality [ 17 ]. An independent agency for certification was created in 2012 to assess provider’s compliance with this regulation.…”

“…In the absence of this, even the best designed programs and contracts will fail to have the desired impact on health outcomes. The case of Bosnia is illustrative of this, where the adoption of supposedly mandatory quality and safety standards has de facto become something of an option, with private providers effectively choosing whether or not to adhere to these standards based on their own assessment of the costs and benefits [ 17 ]. This has also been seen in Afghanistan, Tanzania and Bangladesh, where studies have cited political interference in areas such as selection of facilities for contracting and human resource decisions as detrimental to overall project aims [ 12 – 14 ].…”

Experiences of accreditation impact in general practice – a qualitative study among general practitioners and their staff

“…However, these studies did not explore and describe impact at the clinic level in detail. At the same time, studies have found that professionals from general practice are concerned about the administrative burdens of accreditation [12, 13], concerns which have also been raised by health professionals in other health care settings [1]. Hence, when investigating the impact of accreditation, it is important to pay attention to positive as well as negative experiences.…”