1 / 32

Structural changes in Finnish health care

basics of current structure National Project and other ongoing changes expected changes as extrapolated from challenges evaluation, the ingredient too often absent. Structural changes in Finnish health care. most Finnish health care is public

tauret
Download Presentation

Structural changes in Finnish health care

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. basics of current structure National Project and other ongoing changes expected changes as extrapolated from challenges evaluation, the ingredient too often absent Structural changes in Finnish health care

  2. most Finnish health care is public health careis owned and managed by municipalities and their unions: shared management facilitates the balancing of marginal utilities (or, better, should do so) shared ownership provides a natural platform integration of services (or, better, should do so) Outlines of current structure

  3. Integration of health care institutions university hospital level (3o) division of labor € hospital district level (2o) regionalization € community level (1o) primary education health care social welfare balanced allocations Martti Kekomäki

  4. five university hospitals and their five special recruitment areas (ca. 1 mio each) twenty ‘full service’ hospital districts over 260 health centers over 400 municipalities (~ 400 health policies) Numbers of actors

  5. pediatric cardiac surgery solid organ transplantations certain rare neoplasms The most important current monopolies

  6. Governmentmoney norms and rules monitoring € municipalities € € research, education € health center (primary care) hospitals university hospitals

  7. Strengths: stable, thus predictable; trustworth, thus less bureaucratic; cheap, thus cost-efficient; controlled by local patients, thus responsible; Weaknesses: slow to change, provides little choice, lacks incentives, unresponsive, weakly integrated SW-analysis of the traditional model

  8. bringing all regional hospital services under one single management (HDHU, Helsinki) seeking opportunities for a prudent division of labor (some small hospital districts) setting recommendations for minimum annual rates of certain procedures Changes with opposing directions: 1a. centralization

  9. creating new public-private partnerships into selected areas (Coxa Ltd, Tampere) creating process-oriented (instead of functional) organizations transgressing traditional clinical departments Changes with opposing directions: 1b. centralization

  10. increasing the size of PHC institutions reducing the number of PHC emergency units (several examples) Changes with opposing directions: 1c. centralization

  11. bringing PHC and basic acute hospital services under single management (“health care districts”; scattered experiments) forming independent revenue units within hospitals (laboratory services, imaging) Changes with opposing directions: 2a. decentralization

  12. forming hospital-owned corporations (capital management, laundry) outsourcing of some services (parts of ICT) Changes with opposing directions: 2b. decentralization

  13. To narrow the growing gap between demand and supply of services, national focus on labor (education, re-education); reassessment of inter-professional division of labor; improving managerial skills; emphasis on chains; EBM; HTA; and ITC guarantee of access (3 d - 3 w - 3-6 mths) centralization, cooperation, new incentives National “Salvage” Project 2001-

  14. basic training: more medical students “ : from nurses to MDs’ programs specialization: more training outside UHs research: increasing impact on health services research, clinical outcomes analysis, less money to basic research incentives: private evening clinics NSP: Impact on university hospitals

  15. how to create effective insurance pools (effective: expert, competent, able to buffer the stochastic nature of service demand) improve service quality assess systematically the long-term results improve service chain management Problems to be answered next (in part by structural changes):

  16. Increasing the size of risk pools service flow € hospitals, municipalities € public & private risk capitation by risk profile, benefit package and historical use pool

  17. Improves technical efficiency (through applying market forces) allocative efficiency (through applying HTA- knowledge) predictability of municipal budgeting (by increasing the size of risk pools) equity between municipals (by applying historical volume indicators) Increasing risk pools

  18. because the integration of service is adjusted locally politically it is, however, impossible because it poses a threat to ‘dining and wining’ routines Increasing risk pools does not interfere with local autonomy

  19. Integration of health care institutions university hospital level (3o) division of labor € hospital district level (2o) regionalization € community level (1o) primary education health care social welfare balanced allocations Martti Kekomäki

  20. defining quality axis and constituency making quality explicit and measurable linking quality measures to everyday function and data collection (EPR) Enhancing service quality:the three steps to be taken

  21. risk-adjusted standard mortality ratios (SMR) of all national ICUs, which deploys APACHE III diagnoses and SAPS risk calculation covers now over 100 000 ICU admissions secret, private, voluntary, commercial and international more at www.intensium.fi Nr 1 Finnish quality initiative

  22. Quality and costs of Finnish ICUs 1998 and 2001

  23. care quality in ICU is measurable over time, quality may improve, background factors are yet to be explored benchmarking is effective to promote better quality improved quality is compatible with controlled costs Conclusions

  24. pros: measures ‘health change’ across the intervention area of use: chronic conditions contras: no controls, relies on the ‘natural course’ not applicable to acute conditions (cf. ICU) Focus on effectiveness (instead of efficacy)

  25. HRQoL of back pain patients before and after a neurosurgical intervention

  26. 15D-profiles in cataract patients before (green) and after (red) the operation as compared with age-adjusted normal population (blue)

  27. Health related quality of life in patients with esophageal cancer

  28. a systematic measurement of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness should be mandatory in the future data feeding should be automatic (EPR) follow-up should be extended to years information gained should start guiding allocative (political) decisions Conclusions

  29. to be evaluated, examples: practices: pharyngeal tonsillectomy service provision: private off-hour activities allocation: 15-D measures as guides skills: MDs and management division of labor: nurse practitioners ICT: still a paradox or something more? Evaluation, the missing ingredient

  30. missing: a new strong culture, where the future vision is clear and shared by all counterparts contracting systems are modern measuring instruments are in place and used good performance is rewarded nothing is done without evaluation thus far most of this is lacking... Endpiece

More Related