You are on page 1of 26

Prof.

Magdalene Rosenmller

SANIT 2004

Management in the Health Sector

System Comparison

Magdalene Rosenmller

University of Navarra

Basic Framework
Financing
Institution

Patients Health Care


Clients Providers
Users
Citizens

University of Navarra 2

SANIT - System Comparison 1


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Basic Framework II
Collecting Authority Purchasing Agency
Financing
Institution

Employer

Patients Health Care


Clients Providers
Users
Citizens

University of Navarra 3

OECD system representation


(The German system)

OECD system representation (The German system)

Cotizaciones obligatorias Cajas de


ligadas a los ingresos seguro
enfermedad

Pago por
acto Asociaciones Presupuesto
Mdicos de mdicos global

Poblacin y
empresas
Orientacin

Pacientes
Presupuesto global
(funcin, en cierta
Hospitales
medida, del volumen
Flujo de servicios de actividad)
Flujo de informacin
Flujo de orientacin

University of Navarra 4

SANIT - System Comparison 2


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Different Type of Health Systems


Semashko Systems
Beveridge Systems
Semashko/Beveridge Systems
in low income countries
Bismarck Health Systems
Segmented Health Systems
Private Health Systems

University of Navarra 5

Challenges of Reform: Disintegration


from more integrated more disintegrated
from more complex more need for regulation
Socialized National Social Insurance Social and private
Health system Health Service Systems Insurance systems
State
State State
State MOH
MOH
MOH Private
MOF-MOH Social
Social insurance insurance
insurance
Public
Hospitals hospitals Public and HMOs
specialized Public and private
Polyclinics outpatient private hospitals
Outposts care hospitals

Outpatient
Outpatient
practices
GPs practices

Subscribed Subscribed patients


assigned Subscribed patients or or free choice
patients patients free choice

Schneider, M. (1998). European Integration and Health Care Reforms in the CEEC.
University of NavarraRecent Reforms in Organisation, Financing and Delivery of Health Care in Central and Eastern Europe6
in the Light of Accession to the European Union. Brussels: EC Consensus, May 1998: Proceedings.

SANIT - System Comparison 3


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Semashko
Czech
Republic
(1989)

OECD, 2002

University of Navarra 7

Semashko Systems
In principle:
All health staff salaried
Services provided free of charge
Private sector very small or non-existent
In practice
Substantial under-the-table payments
Examples:
Former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern
Union countries (all in transition now)

University of Navarra 8

SANIT - System Comparison 4


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Beveridge
Health
Systems
United
Kingdom
(1989)

Beveridge
report (1943)
National
Health
Service Act
(1946)

OECD, 2002
University of Navarra 9

Beveridge Health Systems


(National Health Service - NHS)

Largely publicly provided and financed


May include some user charges
Small private sector

Examples:
UK, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, New Zealand

University of Navarra 10

SANIT - System Comparison 5


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Ministry of
Government
Health
Semashko /
Beveridge
Health Systems Public health
centers
in low income
countries Public
hospitals

Private for profit


clinics

Private for profit


hospitals
Zambia
Population
(pre-reform) /patients NGO hospitals
and clinics

Informal and
traditional sector

OECD, 2002
University of Navarra 11

Semashko / Beveridge Health Systems


in low income countries

Designed to be dominated by public provision / finance


Range of publicly owned health facilities
Direct employment of staff in public facilities
Default privatization with under-the-table payments
Large private sector (for-profit and not-for-profit)

Examples:
India, Pakistan, Kenya, Zambia

University of Navarra 12

SANIT - System Comparison 6


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Private
insurance

Bismarck Mutual Funds

Health Systems Statutory

(introduced in the Insurance Funds


Payment to
providers

19th century) Ministry of


health
Reimbursement
to patients

Public health

Pharmacists

Copayment GPs and


specialists
France
Municipal
(1988) Population
medical centers
/patients

Public
hospitals

Private
hospitals

OECD, 2002
University of Navarra 13

GERMANY

University of Navarra 14

SANIT - System Comparison 7


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Bismarck Health Systems


(Social Health Insurance)

Social Insurance arrangements dominate the system


Often some component of voluntary insurance
Both public and private providers
Minor co-payments

Examples:
Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Austria,

University of Navarra 15

Segmented Ministry of
Health

Health Social
Insurance
Compulsory contributions

Systems Private
Voluntary contributions

Insurance
Taxes

Community
services

Private facilities
Population

Ecuador Social Insurance


facilities

Patients Public facilities

University of Navarra 16

SANIT - System Comparison 8


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Segmented Health Systems


Three important subsystems: public, social insurance, and
private (both private insurance and out-of-pocket)
Different segments of the population are covered under
each some are double-covered
Each subsystem has its own providers which are public,
quasi-public, and private, respectively

Examples:
Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Uruguay, Colombia (changing)

University of Navarra 17

Private
Health
Systems

US
(1990)

OECD, 2002
University of Navarra 18

SANIT - System Comparison 9


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Private Health Systems


Private voluntary insurance is the most important financing
mechanism
Provider institutions mainly privately owned
Public involvement in finance and regulation still
substantial

Examples:
USA, Switzerland (changing)

University of Navarra 19

Main Characteristics
Federalism & Corporatism
Lnder and Federal Government
Corporate bodies (professionals, providers, insurers)
Funded by Social Insurance contributions
Hospital care (mix public, private, budget) ambulatory care
(private office based physicians, FFS)Federalism & Coporatism
(Lnder and Federal Government / Lnder / coporate bodies
(professionals, providers, insurers )
Hospital care (mix public, private, budget) ambulatory care
(private office based physicians, FFS)

University of Navarra 20

SANIT - System Comparison 10


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

The German system at a glance ...


Financing Institution
Third-party payer

ca. 300 sickness funds


with self-government
not (health) risk-, organised in associations
but wage-related
contributions Strong Contracts,
mostly collective
delegation
Choice of fund
& limited
since 1996
governmental control

Free access
Providers
Population
Public-private mix,
SHI insures 88% organised in associations
(75% mandatorily,
13% voluntarily) adapted from
University of Navarra
Reinhard Busse, TU Berlin
21

Germany: challenges
Strict separation between ambulatory and hospital
(inpatient) care with different regulatory environment
and rules
Financial incentives vary between sectors and are
changed frequently solutions to old problems create
new ones
Moving between funds, young and health less
mixed risk adjustment fund
Quality and Cost Effectiveness (WHR 2000 #27 in
terms of performance (efficiency)

University of Navarra 22

SANIT - System Comparison 11


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Problem 1: Strict separation between ambulatory and hospital


(inpatient) care with different regulatory environment and rules

Proposals Repre-
Federal Ministry for health Federal Parliament sen-
of Health reform acts tation State Ministries
Federal Assembly Federal Council
responsible for health
(Bundestag) (Bundesrat)

Legislative frame Supervision

Enlistment in hospital plans


Obligation to secure hospital care

Insuree/ Patient Ob
Fre liga
eat ose edo tion
to tr cho m to to tr
tion m to cho eat
liga edo ose
Ob Fre
re

Obligation to contract
ecu

Freedom to choose
Physician to s re Hospital
tion ry ca
liga

negotiation
Financial
to
Ob bula
23 (Regional) Physicians am
16 Regional Hospital

negotiation
Financial
Associations Organizations
Federal Association of SHI
Supervision Federal Hospital
Physicians
Organization

Supervision of country-wide funds (via Federal Supervision of regional funds


Insurance Office) Sickness fund
Sickness funds in one region
Supervision
Supervision
Federal associations
of sickness funds
Supervision
Fed. Com. of Physicians and Fed. Com. for Hospital
Sickness Funds: Decisions on Care: Decisions on
ambulatory benefits Coordinating Committee
in-patient benefits
Valuation Committee: DRGs: Decision about
Setting of relative point values types and valuation

Statutory health insurance 2003


University of Navarra 23

Problem 2:
Financial incentives vary between sectors/providers / frequent changes
Solutions to old problems create new ones

Voluntary private insurance Private health and Reimbursement of patients (pharmaceuticals, amb.
premiums 8.3% care) or payment to providers
long-term care insurers
Contributions 57.0% Payment to providers, sick pay to patients
Statutory sickness funds
Contributions 7.0% Statutory long-term care funds Payment to providers,
cash benefits to patients
General taxation 7.8% Federal and state governments

Investment & salaries


Public health services 0.8%

Ambulatory nursing care providers 2.7% Fee for service

Per diems
Nursing homes 7.0%
Co-payments and non-

Investment
expenditure 12.3%
reimbursed health

Investment
Public, private non-profit and private Per diems, case and procedure fees
for-profit hospitals
Per diems, case and procedure fees
27.4% plus fee for service

Prices
Population and Pharmacies 13.7%
employers Fee for service
Dentists 6.5% Fee for service (via Dentists associations)
Patients
(and private organisations) Fee Mainly capitation
for Physicians associations
Ambulatory care physicians
service
13.6%
Fee for service

University of Navarra 24

SANIT - System Comparison 12


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Problem 3 (actually No. 1):


Increase of contribution rate

Background: no tax subsidies; Sub-problem:


sickness funds are sickness funds did go into debt
not allowed to incur deficits estimated to be up to 10 billion
(< 1 monthly expenditure)
Expenditure
= contribution rate
Contributory income
(wages up to threshold; pensions;
50% of wages for unemployed ...)
Sharp increases (1991-93; 2001-03)
have always triggered major reforms!
University of Navarra 25

Responses: ongoing Reforms


Reform act Year

Health Care Reform Act 1989 ("First step") 1988


Unification Treaty (extension of SHI to eastern part) 1991

Health Care Structure Act 1993 ("Second step") 1992


Introduction of Long-term Care Insurance 1995

Health Insurance Contribution Rate Exoneration Act 1996


1st & 2nd Statutory Health Insurance 1997
Restructuring Act (third step")
Act to Strengthen Solidarity in Statutory 1998
Health Insurance
Reform Act of Statutory Health Insurance 2000 1999
University of Navarra 26

SANIT - System Comparison 13


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Solutions: latest developments


Restructuring financial incentives
Disease Management Programmes
The SHI Modernisation Act 2003
Funding basis to entire population?
from income based to per-capita?

University of Navarra 27

United
Kingdom

University of Navarra 28

SANIT - System Comparison 14


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Spain

University of Navarra 29

UK Health System: Main


Characteristics
Devolution responsibility to countries, then to
local bodies.
Tax based funding
Primary care by GPs, multiprofessional teams
in health centres (capitation)
Public hospitals, independent trust status
Little private care to private insured and direct
pay

University of Navarra 30

SANIT - System Comparison 15


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

UK: Last Developments


Health policy = high profile
Recognised that health care has been under funded
9% of GPD (??),
increase NHS workforce numbers
Long waiting lists for hospital appointments, poor quality of
hospital buildings contracting services in France / Belgium
NICE - National Institute for Clinical Excellence
Development of DRG health related groups
Responsibility for purchasing to be passed from health
authorities to primary care trusts / local health groups, = main
purchaser of health services
Modernisation Board, Commission for Health Improvement

University of Navarra 31

Exercise
Decide in which system would you prefer to become
sick? Why?
Draw a scheme describing the Chinese system and its
characteristics and what is desirable?:
Who benefits and what are the benefits?
Who pays and how much?
Who collects the money and where does it go?
How much is it spent and on what?
How do patients access services?
Describe a typical patient journey through the system
What are the major challenges?
Definition of the Hospital
what are the basic elements?
University of Navarra 32

SANIT - System Comparison 16


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Bismarck vs. Beveridge


Contributions Citizenship/ resident
Wages All income
Defined (explicit Comprehensive
rationing) (implicit rationing)
Occupational insurer State Insurer
Independent State control
management Integrated providers
AWP contracts/
reimbursement

University of Navarra 33

Poor relief/charity Destitute Roman / Greek

Mutuality
Guilds Middle ages

Voluntarism Blue collar workers Early industrialization

Corporatism Employees Late industrialization

Universalism Citizens Post WW-II

University of Navarra 34

SANIT - System Comparison 17


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Comparison: Collection of Funds

Source: WHO HITs Health Care in Transition Profiles

University of Navarra 35

Comparison: Reimbursement Systems

University of Navarra 36

SANIT - System Comparison 18


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Germany United Kingdom


Coverage (percentage of population 88% 100%
with public/social insurance/ type)
Private insurance (percentage of 9% (substitutive); approx.10% of 11.5% (complementary and
population with private insurance/ SHI members (supplementary supplementary)
type) and/or complementary)
Benefits defined? By whom? Yes. Generic terms in Social Code No for medical services. Except
Book V. More detailed benefits in where the decisions of NICE make
ambulatory care are defined by explicit the inclusion/ exclusion of
Federal Committee of Physicians certain drugs or services. Negative
and Sickness Funds. Hospital list of drugs (Section 8a Drug Tariff)
benefits to be defined by Federal
Committee of Hospitals and
Sickness Funds in future.
Main taxes/ contributions Varying by fund: Employer 6.75% Income tax bands (10%, 22%, 40%)
mean, Employee 6.75% mean 10% VAT (17.5%)
rate for people earning below EUR
322. employer only.
Other contributions/ taxes No National Insurance contributions
Employer 11.9% Employee 10%
Ceiling on contributory income Yes. DEM 6525 monthlyincome in Yes for national insurance
2001 contributions Employee Lower GBP
87, upper GBP 575 Employer Lower
GBP 87, no upper
Determines contributions/ taxes Individual funds subject to approval Treasury
by Lnder (regional) government or
Federal Insurance Office
Collection of contributions/ taxes Individual funds Inland Revenue
Global budget (frequency) No. Sectoral budgets Yes. 3-year cycle
Mechanism for national pooling or Risk-structure compensation Risk adjusted allocations to health
financial risk sharing among funds mechanism at the federal level (for authorities/ health boards and in
>90% of income) future direct to loca l purchasers
(e.g. PCTs)

University of Navarra 37

Payment - Incentives
Payment method Advantages Disadvantages

Budget Allows strong control No direct financial incentive for


Predictable expenses efficiency
Provider may under-provide
services
Capitation Predictable expenses Financial risk may bankrupt
Provider has incentive to operate provider
efficiently Provider may under-provide
Eliminates supplier-induced services
demand
Low administrative costs
Fee-for-service Increase health productivity Cost-escalating: strong
incentives for induced demand
High administrative costs

Case Based Strong incentive to operate Provider has incentives to select


efficiently low-risk within case categories
Less suitable for outpatient care

University of Navarra 38

SANIT - System Comparison 19


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Responsiveness Internal Incentives

WHO 2000

University of Navarra 39

Pooling to redistribute risk, cross-subsidy for greater equity

University of Navarra 40

SANIT - System Comparison 20


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Health System Financing and Provision

University of Navarra 41

Health System Financing and Provision

University of Navarra 42

SANIT - System Comparison 21


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Functions of a health system


Financing

RESOURCE GENERATION
Revenue Collection
STEWARDSHIP

Fund Pooling

Purchasing

Provision
Personal Non-Personal
Health Services Health Services

University of Navarra 43

Provider Payment mechanism and


provider behavior

Source: WHO Health Report 2000

University of Navarra 44

SANIT - System Comparison 22


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Exposure of different organisational


forms to internal incentives

Source: WHO Health Report 2000


University of Navarra 45

Exposure of different organisational


forms to external incentives

Source: WHO Health Report 2000


University of Navarra 46

SANIT - System Comparison 23


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Objectives
Efficiency
Allocative efficiency
Technical efficiency
Equity
Progressivity
Equity of access
Responsiveness
Accessibility
Choice
Sustainability

University of Navarra 47

University of Navarra 48

SANIT - System Comparison 24


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

University of Navarra 49

University of Navarra 50

SANIT - System Comparison 25


Prof. Magdalene Rosenmller

Data Exercise
OECD Health Data Base
http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-12-nodirectorate-no-1-29046-12,00.html

WHO Europe HFA


Health for All Database
http://hfadb.who.dk/hfa/

University of Navarra 51

Thanks!!

University of Navarra

SANIT - System Comparison 26