1 / 24

State of play at the international level and ambitions of EUROSTAT

State of play at the international level and ambitions of EUROSTAT. C. van Mosseveld, PhD EUROSTAT Unit F5: Health and Food Safety statistics. Content. EUROSTAT Health statistics OECD-WHO-EUROSTAT Joint Questionnaire on Health Expenditure SHA Revision Process Problems and Comparability.

jensen
Download Presentation

State of play at the international level and ambitions of EUROSTAT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State of play at the international level and ambitions of EUROSTAT C. van Mosseveld, PhD EUROSTAT Unit F5: Health and Food Safety statistics COSA: Health Accounts in Belgium

  2. Content • EUROSTAT Health statistics • OECD-WHO-EUROSTAT Joint Questionnaire on Health Expenditure • SHA Revision Process • Problems and Comparability

  3. Health statistics in Eurostat Food safety Unit F5 Health and safety at work Public health Non-expenditure Physical data of economic units COD HIS Morb Manpower data Expenditure Joint Questionnaire SHA Revision

  4. Joint OECD-WHO-EUROSTAT Questionnaire COSA: Health Accounts in Belgium

  5. Background & Goals • Need for data on SHA: WGPH decided to have SHA implemented • SHA data are important for OECD, EUROSTAT and WHO-HQ • Co-operation and co-ordination required • Result: Joint Questionnaire SHA created in 2005 • Reducing the burden for suppliers • Increase the possibilities of national and international analysis of data • Facilitate the use of the data by stakeholders

  6. Process • Starting point: tables based on the classifications of the manual (OECD, WHO PG) • Each organisation informs its national counterparts • Nomination of one focal point per country • Only one data set to be returned • Installation of IHAT responsible for communication with data suppliers • Validation by either of the 3 organisations within 2 months • Information exchange on all steps of the validation process • Dissemination free to chose by each of the 3 organisations

  7. Validation process • For all 5 tables: internal consistency checked at all digit levels • For all 5 tables the consistency is checked between identical variables at all levels of detail • For every table the relative shares are presented • Growth rates between 2 years can be checked • Finally all data can be checked against the methodological information

  8. SHA Revision COSA: Health Accounts in Belgium

  9. Background • 2006 OECD, WHO and EUROSTAT: work together in SHA revision • Goal is global SHA standard, manual • For this: • IHAT (created for JQ) mandate revised • Consultation process to be created • Programme of work to be set up • Membership: OECD, WHO and EUROSTAT • Secretariat: OECD

  10. Reasons behind revision process • SHA Manual is “pilot”, first draft • Implementation started around 1999 • Now around 100 country experiences available • Problems identified (consistency, boundary, etc.) • Need for more flexibility and policy relevance

  11. First step: Problem Inventory • WGPH 2006 requested EUROSTAT to take stock of the problems MS face in the implementation of SHA and the use of the manual • OECD and WHO conducted similar processes • All answers are used in the revision process

  12. Summary of Results of Problem Inventory • Definitions and descriptions in manual are not clear leading to misinterpretations • Also requests for more examples • Boundary problems e.g.: • Production, financing, final use (functions) • Additional classifications may be necessary e.g. for policy needs • More flexibility to respond to changes in data requests • Links between SHA and SNA appreciated

  13. IHAT: responsibilities • Set up programme of work for SHA revision • Distribute the subjects into units • Provide the rationale behind each unit • Propose the key issues to be addressed in each unit • Facilitate and co-ordinate the consultation process • IHAT decides based on consensus • IHAT has to warrant overall consistency

  14. IHAT: steps in the Revision Process • Invitation to produce “Input papers” and comments on these • Co-ordinating organisation produces “proposal for 1st IHAT draft” • IHAT discusses and produces “1st IHAT draft” • Invite comments from the international community • IHAT discusses and produces “2nd IHAT draft” in case of consensus • Lacking consensus: selected experts opinion and back to IHAT: accepting or rejecting of proposal • IHAT (at senior level) submits “Draft Manual” to decision making bodies in three organisations

  15. Possible involvement, information provided • Heads of statistical authorities of all OECD and EU member and candidate and acceding countries. • Ministries of Health. • Experts serving as focal points for the Joint OECD-WHO-EUROSTAT Health Accounts data collection. • Health accounts networks. • European Commission. • UNSD, OECD Statistics Directorate. • World Bank, Regional Development Banks, IMF. • Private experts, ………., etc.

  16. Facilitation of Participation • A tri-party website is introduced • A tri-party EDG is installed • Each of the 3 organisations adds its own formal and informal processes: • OECD: e.g. Health expert meeting • WHO: e.g. regional networks in the world • EUROSTAT: e.g. SHA Revision Development Group

  17. Expected results • Solutions for identified statistical problems • A sound statistical system • Backward comparability • Better links to SNA/ESA and its classifications • Possibilities to link to national classification systems • Improved cross-country comparability • Improved usability in framework of policy relevance

  18. Introduction Part I: Principles & Concepts Reasons for revision, new elements, overview Unit 1: Purposes & principles Unit 2: Global boundaries Unit 3: Key concepts & definitions Unit 4: Expenditure dimensions Unit 5: Types of HA Unit 6: Relationships to other statistical systems Proposed work programme

  19. Part II: ICHA Unit 7: ICHA-HC health care functional classification Unit 8: ICHA-HP health care provider classification Unit 9: ICHA-FS financing sources classification Unit 10: ICHA-HF financing schemes classification Unit 11: ICHA-HB beneficiaries classification Unit 12: ICHA-RC resources mobilised in the production of health goods and services Unit 13: ICHA-P health care products classification Unit 14: Human resources Proposed work programme (2)

  20. Part III: Indicators, tables & compilation Unit 15: Presentation of results Unit 16: Basic accounting rules and guidelines Unit 17: Possible compilation processes Unit 18: Policy use Glossary Proposed work programme (3)

  21. Time frame & remarks • Proposes finalisation date: End of 2009 • The new Manual should provide clear guidance for migration from SHA 1.0 to SHA 2.0 • SHA revision should not discourage countries from developing NHA based on current methodologies

  22. Comparability COSA: Health Accounts in Belgium

  23. Problems & solutions • Problems in cross-country comparability: • 10-20 years ago already known that providers, products and financing agents NOT comparable (even having the same name). • New approaches were needed • For comparability goals the Functional Classification was invented, evolved as a natural solution • All problems solved? • No, but much more comparability is reached by using the ICHA; and much more expected by SHA II.

More Related