Reform in German hospital funding system concerns doctors

The Lancet ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 359 (9303) ◽  
pp. 328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Orellana
2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S171-S172
Author(s):  
A. Lourenço ◽  
C. Ventura ◽  
S. Andrade ◽  
J. Sousa ◽  
F. Valadas

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-22
Author(s):  
Theodora Malamou

S.W.O.T analysis is a proposed strategic analysis tool for healthcare organizations. The issues identified in the S.W.O.T. analysis are classified into four categories. From the internal environment of the service are the strength points, such as accessibility, good level of provided health services, experienced and specialized nursing staff, modern level of technological-biomedical equipment, management oriented to quality procedures, staff satisfaction and the weakness points, such as shortages of human resources and equipment, mental and physical fatigue, non-application of treatment protocols, vague nursing tasks, modest or reduced staff training, worker culture. From the external environment, there are opportunities, start-up and operation of quality assurance systems, awareness of service weaknesses, medical records, volunteering, private forms of hospital funding, multiculturalism, and threats, such as financial and values crisis, bureaucracy in day-to-day management, the presence of a significant number of migrants and uninsured people, health users’ displeasure, private care, change of epidemiological model. The purpose of the article is to highlight the application of the S.W.O.T. analysis as an important tool in the hands of nursing administration, decision-making and shaping a future strategy of health services. S.W.O.T is a useful, but not a stand-alone, strategic planning tool that promises health services to make informed decisions and leave nothing to chance in order to be efficient and competitive.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Pincus ◽  
Jessica Widdifield ◽  
Karen S. Palmer ◽  
J. Michael Paterson ◽  
Alvin Li ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Health care funding reforms are being used worldwide to improve system performance but may invoke unintended consequences. We assessed the effects of introducing a targeted hospital funding model, based on fixed price and volume, for hip fractures. We hypothesized the policy change was associated with reduction in wait times for hip fracture surgery, increase in wait times for non-hip fracture surgery, and increase in the incidence of after-hours hip fracture surgery. Methods This was a population-based, interrupted time series analysis of 49,097 surgeries for hip fractures, 10,474 for ankle fractures, 1,594 for tibial plateau fractures, and 40,898 for appendectomy at all hospitals in Ontario, Canada between April 2012 and March 2017. We used segmented regression analysis of interrupted monthly time series data to evaluate the impact of funding reform enacted April 1, 2014 on wait time for hip fracture repair (from hospital presentation to surgery) and after-hours provision of surgery (occurring between 1700 and 0700 h). To assess potential adverse consequences of the reform, we also evaluated two control procedures, ankle and tibial plateau fracture surgery. Appendectomy served as a non-orthopedic tracer for assessment of secular trends. Results The difference (95 % confidence interval) between the actual mean wait time and the predicted rate had the policy change not occurred was − 0.46 h (-3.94 h, 3.03 h) for hip fractures, 1.46 h (-3.58 h, 6.50 h) for ankle fractures, -3.22 h (-39.39 h, 32.95 h) for tibial plateau fractures, and 0.33 h (-0.57 h, 1.24 h) for appendectomy (Figure 1; Table 3). The difference (95 % confidence interval) between the actual and predicted percentage of surgeries performed after-hours − 0.90 % (-3.91 %, 2.11 %) for hip fractures, -3.54 % (-11.25 %, 4.16 %) for ankle fractures, 7.09 % (-7.97 %, 22.14 %) for tibial plateau fractures, and 1.07 % (-2.45 %, 4.59 %) for appendectomy. Conclusions We found no significant effects of a targeted hospital funding model based on fixed price and volume on wait times or the provision of after-hours surgery. Other approaches for improving hip fracture wait times may be worth pursuing instead of funding reform.


2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Kenny ◽  
J. Barnfield ◽  
L. Daly ◽  
A. Dunn ◽  
D. Passey ◽  
...  

AbstractWith the UK population ageing, deciding upon a satisfactory and sustainable system for the funding of people’s long-term care (LTC) needs has long been a topic of political debate. Phase 1 of the Care Act 2014 (“the Act”) brought in some of the reforms recommended by the Dilnot Commission in 2011. However, the Government announced during 2015 that Phase 2 of “the Act” such as the introduction of a £72,000 cap on Local Authority care costs and a change in the means testing thresholds1 would be deferred until 2020. In addition to this delay, the “freedom and choice” agenda for pensions has come into force. It is therefore timely that the potential market responses to help people pay for their care within the new pensions environment should be considered. In this paper, we analyse whether the proposed reforms meet the policy intention of protecting people from catastrophic care costs, whilst facilitating individual understanding of their potential care funding requirements. In particular, we review a number of financial products and ascertain the extent to which such products might help individuals to fund the LTC costs for which they would be responsible for meeting. We also produce case studies to demonstrate the complexities of the care funding system. Finally, we review the potential impact on incentives for individuals to save for care costs under the proposed new means testing thresholds and compare these with the current thresholds. We conclude that:∙Although it is still too early to understand exactly how individuals will respond to the pensions freedom and choice agenda, there are a number of financial products that might complement the new flexibilities and help people make provision for care costs.∙The new care funding system is complex making it difficult for people to understand their potential care costs.∙The current means testing system causes a disincentive to save. The new means testing thresholds provide a greater level of reward for savers than the existing thresholds and therefore may increase the level of saving for care; however, the new thresholds could still act as a barrier since disincentives still exist.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document