A Comparison of International Health Outcomes and Health Care Spending

AbstractDoes increased spending improve health outcomes? We analyzed 1988 data from OECD countries to determine how key health care indexes correlate with health care outcomes. Total health care spending per capita and outpatient and inpatient utilization are not related to health outcomes. How our resources are allocated seems to be more important than how much money is actually spent.

Download Full-text

Avarice, Inefficiency, and Inequality: An International Health Care Tale

International Journal of Health Services ◽

10.2190/nup7-cbmd-efxl-w6cu ◽

1977 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 179-190

Author(s):

Alan Maynard

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Care Delivery ◽

Medical Profession ◽

International Health ◽

West Germany ◽

Health Care Outcomes ◽

Care Outcomes ◽

Health Care Delivery Systems ◽

The Cost

The paper is concerned with impact of a medical profession, physicians, on the delivery of health care. The basic economic motivation of self-interest and avarice has led this profession to produce health care outcomes which are inequitable and inefficient. In the first section of the paper the regional geographical distribution of physicians in four disparate health systems—England, Ireland, France, and West Germany-is analyzed and found to be highly unequal. The next section is concerned with the efficacy of therapies and the cost-effectiveness of health care delivery systems in a variety of countries. The final section discusses how health care can be more equitably and more efficiently delivered. It is argued that both markets and bureaucracies are likely to be inadequate unless carefully monitored. In particular, there is a great need to investigate the cost-effectiveness of therapies and then persuade physicians, via pecuniary and nonpecuniary incentives, to behave in a manner which leads to more equitable and efficient health care outcomes.

Download Full-text

Thriving in the 21st Century: Outcome Assessment, Practice Parameters, and Accountability

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.96.4.831 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 96 (4) ◽

pp. 831-835 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

David A. Bergman

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Health Care ◽

Health Outcomes ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Care Practice ◽

Health Care Outcomes ◽

Effective Manner ◽

Care Outcomes

The past two decades have brought about major health care changes that have been driven by an ever-increasing cost of health care, practice variability, and medical malpractice litigation. These changes pose a challenge to pediatricians to contain costs, to reduce inappropriate use of health care services, and to demonstrate improved health care outcomes. To meet this challenge, a new "clinical tool kit" is required, one that will allow the pediatrician to analyze current practices and to document effective interventions. Two of the major tools in this kit are practice guidelines and outcomes assessment instruments. Practice guidelines are optimal care specifications that provide an analytic framework for defining high-quality care and measuring health care outcomes. Ideally, these guidelines should be developed from scientific evidence. In practice, however, scientific evidence to support the majority of recommendations made in guidelines is insufficient. Consequently, these recommendations are instead developed by expert consensus. Measurement of health outcomes includes clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, cost and use, and quality of life. Health care organizations have become very sophisticated in measuring cost and use, but considerably less work has been done in the patient-centered areas of satisfaction and quality of life. This is particularly true for children, because measures are dependent on the viewpoint chosen (parent, child, or teacher), the age of the child, and the adjustment for severity of illness. Analyzing practice patterns and improving health outcomes will not be easy tasks to accomplish. For the pediatrician to use these tools in an efficient and effective manner, a new research agenda and new skills will be required.

Download Full-text

Does increased health care spending afford better health care outcomes? Evidence from Austrian health care expenditure since the implementation of DRGs

Swiss Medical Weekly ◽

10.4414/smw.2012.13589 ◽

2012 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

P Vavken ◽

G Pagenstert ◽

C Grimm ◽

R Dorotka

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Health Care Expenditure ◽

Health Care Spending ◽

Health Care Outcomes ◽

Care Outcomes

Download Full-text

The role of accreditation in 21st century health professions education: report of an International Consensus Group

BMC Medical Education ◽

10.1186/s12909-020-02121-5 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (S1) ◽

Author(s):

Jason R. Frank ◽

◽

Sarah Taber ◽

Marta van Zanten ◽

Fedde Scheele ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

International Health ◽

Health Professions ◽

Health Professions Education ◽

International Consensus ◽

Health Care Outcomes ◽

Core Elements ◽

Care Outcomes ◽

Education Report ◽

Google Search

Abstract Background Accreditation is considered an essential ingredient for an effective system of health professions education (HPE) globally. While accreditation systems exist in various forms worldwide, there has been little written about the contemporary enterprise of accreditation and even less about its role in improving health care outcomes. We set out to 1) identify a global, contemporary definition of accreditation in the health professions, 2) describe the relationship of educational accreditation to health care outcomes, 3) identify important questions and recurring issues in twenty-first century HPE accreditation, and 4) propose a framework of essential ingredients in present-day HPE accreditation. Methods We identified health professions accreditation leaders via a literature search and a Google search of HPE institutions, as well as by accessing the networks of other leaders. These leaders were invited to join an international consensus consortium to advance the scholarship and thinking about HPE accreditation. We describe the consensus findings from the International Health Professions Accreditation Outcomes Consortium (IHPAOC). Results We define accreditation as the process of formal evaluation of an educational program, institution, or system against defined standards by an external body for the purposes of quality assurance and enhancement. In the context of HPE, accreditation is distinct from other forms of program evaluation or research. Accreditation can enhance health care outcomes because of its ability to influence and standardize the quality of training programs, continuously enhance curriculum to align with population needs, and improve learning environments. We describe ten fundamental and recurring elements of accreditation systems commonly found in HPE and provide an overview of five emerging developments in accreditation in the health professions based on the consensus findings. Conclusions Accreditation has taken on greater importance in contemporary HPE. These consensus findings provide frameworks of core elements of accreditation systems and both recurring and emerging design issues. HPE scholars, educators, and leaders can build on these frameworks to advance research, development, and operation of high-quality accreditation systems worldwide.

Download Full-text

Spending Too Much on the Wrong Things

Pained ◽

10.1093/oso/9780197510384.003.0031 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 107-110

Author(s):

Michael D. Stein ◽

Sandro Galea

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Health Outcomes ◽

Health System ◽

Social Services ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Entire Population ◽

Health Care Spending ◽

Care Providers ◽

The Social ◽

Per Capita

This chapter addresses overspending in health care. Americans spend half as many days in hospital as persons living in other high-income countries. They take fewer pills per person, and they have fewer doctors per capita. Yet Americans spend two to three times as much on health care as other countries, and they have poorer health outcomes. This is because they overpay. Talking about overspending suggests that certain partners in the health system are charging more than they should. Since about one third of health care spending is related to hospitals and another 20% is paid to health care providers, these are the obvious culprits. If Americans spent less on hospitals and clinicians, they could spend more on the social services required to prevent or reduce illness, to make their entire population healthier.

Download Full-text