slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Review of European and OECD countries experiences Health output methods PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Review of European and OECD countries experiences Health output methods

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 25
mei

Review of European and OECD countries experiences Health output methods - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

84 Views
Download Presentation
Review of European and OECD countries experiences Health output methods
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. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Measurement of non-market output in education and healthOECD/ONS workshopLondon, 3-5 October 2006 Review of European and OECD countries experiences Health output methods Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  2. Importance of price and volume measures for the European Union • The availability of price and volume measures of GDP is essential for: • Monitoring economic development in the EU • The monetary policy of the euro area • The implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  3. Some legal aspects in the EU • Commission Decisions 98/715 and 2002/990 clarified the principles for the measurement of prices and volumes. • This Commission legislation has identified the most appropriate estimation methods to be applied (A and B methods) and the methods which shall not to be used (C methods). • The old Member States were asked to remove the C methods by end 2006. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  4. Aims of the list of questions • In June 2006 Eurostat sent to all Member States a list of questions on price and volume measurement in the fields of non market health and education services. • The main objective was to assess and monitor Member States progress towards removing C methods by end 2006. • In this context, the sharing of experience between countries is of utmost importance. • During the same month of June 2006, the OECD launched a similar questionnaire to OECD non-EU members, in the perspective of its „non-market project“ (best practices). Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  5. Scope of the list • The list covers solely the output methods currently used or being developed by the countries. • 24 out of 27 EU countries (including Iceland and Norway) replied to the list. • 7 OECD non-EU countries replied to the similar OECD questionnaire, but only 2 (AU, NZ) currently apply output methods and 1 (US) studies a project. Japan and Korea are „all market“. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  6. Structure of the list • The list covers five aspects: • Stratification • Quantity indicators • Weighting • Quality indicators • Availability of the data Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  7. Stratification (1) • A and B methods require stratification for, at least, the following categories: • Hospital services • Medical practice services • Dental practice services • Other human health services Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  8. Stratification (2) • Hospital services must be broken down in: • Services to in-patients by general and specialised hospitals. • Hospital psychiatric services • Rehabilitation services in rehabilitation centers / hospitals • Nursing services • Medical practice services must be broken down in: • Services by medical specialists • Services by general practitioners Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  9. Stratification (3) • The basic stratification is generally applied • 11 EU countries use complementary stratifications (by region and subject) • AU and NZ use a specific ANZICS classification (developed for specialists). Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  10. Quantity indicators (1) • Eurostat handbook indicates: “The quantity of health care received by patients should be measured in terms of complete treatments“. • For hospital services Eurostat recommends to measure the treatments on the basis of DRG (Diagnosis Related Groups). • For nursing services Eurostat recommends occupant days by level of care. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  11. Quantity indicators (2) • For services by general practitioners Eurostat recommends to use the number of consultations by type of treatment. • For services by medical specialists Eurostat recommends to use the number of first visits. • For dental practice services Eurostat recommends to use the number of consultations by type of treatment. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  12. Quantity indicators (3) • For services to inpatients by general and specialised hospitals we had 20 EU replies: • 8 countries use DRG methods. • 6 countries use mixed methods. • 3 countries use the number of occupant days. • 3 countries use other methods. • AU, NZ use DRG too (+ US in project) Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  13. Quantity indicators (4) • For hospital psychiatric services we had 15 EU replies: • 2 countries use DRG methods. • 6 countries use the number of occupant days. • 3 countries use mixed methods. • 4 countries use other methods. • AU uses number of occupant days by level of care, NZ a composite index. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  14. Quantity indicators (5) • For rehabilitation services we had 12 EU replies: • 2 countries use DRG methods. • 5 countries use the number of occupant days. • 2 countries use the number of treatments. • 3 countries use mixed methods. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  15. Quantity indicators (6) • For nursing services we had 13 EU replies: • 2 countries use DRG methods. • 8 countries use the number of occupant days. • 1 country uses the number of treatments. • 3 countries use mixed methods. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  16. Quantity indicators (7) • For services by general practitioners we had 15 EU replies: • 5 countries use the number of consultations. • 3 countries use the number of treatments. • 5 countries use mixed methods. • 2 countries use other methods. • AU uses the number of treatments and NZ the CPI (idem for other medical services). Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  17. Quantity indicators (8) • For services by medical specialists we had 13 EU replies: • 3 countries use the number of consultations. • 4 countries use the number of treatments. • 4 countries use mixed methods. • 2 countries use other methods. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  18. Quantity indicators (9) • For dental services we had 14 EU replies: • 4 countries use the number of consultations. • 3 countries use the number of treatments. • 4 countries use mixed methods. • 3 countries use other methods. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  19. Quantity indicators (10) • For other human health services we had 8 EU replies: • 2 countries use the number of treatments. • 2 countries use mixed methods. • 4 countries use other methods. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  20. Weighting • Nearly all countries apply weightings based on costs as required in the regulation. • They mainly use administrative sources. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  21. Quality indicators (1) • Eurostat recommends the use of adjustments for quality but an output indicator method can be acceptable (B method) without quality adjutment. • 6 European countries use adjustments for quality and these adjusments are mainly based on DRG. • The US envisage to use QALY. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  22. Quality indicators (2) • For example, Italy and Austria use fully quality-adjusted indicators based on the DRG for each class of hospital services. • Italy uses also indicators based on high-technology diagnostic equipment. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  23. Quality indicators (3) • The issue of quality is, indeed, a very difficult one, both conceptually and in terms of implementation. • Eurostat is interested to learn some ideas from this workshop and will continue discussions at EU level. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  24. Conclusion (1) • Health is a particulary difficult area, more difficult than education, certainly due to the great heterogenity of health systems across countries. • Eurostat has to continue discussions with EU MS on the difficulties mentioned and try to find appropriate solutions on the various aspects of price and volume measurement. Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS

  25. Conclusion (2) • It is important to work on administrative sources, in particular, to help to reduce response burden. • Further discussions are needed on the issue of quality adjusment. • In next OECD workshop in Paris, in June 2007 ? Francis MALHERBE, Eurostat, unit C1 and Alain GALLAIS, OECD, STD/NAFS