Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

BMG Year 3/4 > RHC Week 3 > Flashcards

RHC Week 3 Flashcards

1
Q

Objectives of public healthcare systems

A
  1. efficient allocation of resources:
    - maximize health (e.g. QALYs) given budget constraint
  2. equitable allocation of resources
    - allocate resources equitable and fairly
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

When is a technology cost-effective?

A

cost-effective when:
∆ ct / ∆Qi < vi

not cost-effective when:
∆ ct / ∆Qi > vi

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Why would you not want to reimburse a health technology that IS cost-effective

A

o Rare disease (small patient group)
o Opportunity costs are too high, it may be more valuable/efficient to allocate resources to a different disease/treatment (better to spend budget differently, also relates to rare disease as an equity consideration)
o Treatment for, for example, toe fungus may be cost effective but has a low societal value or it is so cheap that people can buy it themselves
§ Example: Viagra, very cost effective and great benefits, but from societal perspective it is not that valuable
§ Example: paracetamol

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Why would you want to reimburse a health technology that is NOT cost-effective

A

o Public/political pressure
o Rare diseases – price is very high because it is so rare, but there is no other treatment. Patients cannot pay for treatment themselves as this is too expensive (e.g., rare disease)
o Unmet needs due to the lack of other treatments
o Young patients

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

The social value of QALY gains (vi) can differ and depend on characteristis of, for example

A
  • patients
    -diseases
  • health technology

(schwappach)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The i can depend on characteristics of patients

A
  • Age: better for younger patients than for 90 year olds
  • Gender: women live longer but with higher disease burden, but people can feel that men should be prioritised so there is less difference
  • Lifestyle: smoking, unhealthy people should get lower weight than people who have always lived healthy
  • SES: lower classes can be prioritised so there is less inequality
  • Having children: people depending on them
  • Past health consumption: if they already had a lot of healthcare in the past, now it is someone else turn
    Not desirable, by law this is not allowed in many countries. Feels like discrimination
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Characteristics of diseases

A
  • Severity: cancers much more severe than the flu  very important. People with very bad illness are often prioritized over people who are not that ill
  • Prevalence: people with rare diseases should have higher weight
  • Type: episodic (migraines)
  • Outcome: if people recover or die
  • Acceptable health: we may find a QALY gain more value for a young person who can’t walk, versus for an old person who can’t walk. Because it is part of aging
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Characteristics of intervention

A
  • Size/type of health gain: quality of life differs from gains in life expectancy
  • Type of treatment: does it prevent future illnesses?
  • Is there unmet need?
  • Spillover effects: if you treat the parent, does this also help the children eat more healthy?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Who are considered more severely ill is a normative question. There are different theories that provide different answers. Two important ‘severity approaches’ are:

A
  1. severity of illness
  2. fair innings
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

severity of illness consists off

A
  • prospective health
  • rule of rescue
  • absolute shortfall
  • proportional shortfall
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

prospective health

A

= how much health someone has left in the future

patients who have relatively less (or very little) prospective health are more worse off; the smaller the prospective health, the stronger the urgency to help these patients

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

absolute shortfall

A

= how much health people lose as a consequence of disease if they do not have acces to treatment

–> disease related health loss (wihtout the new treatment)

(e.g. 20 years * 0.5 QOL point + 40 years * 1 QOL = 50 QALYs)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

proportional shortfall meaning

A

= amount of health they lose relative to the amount of health they would have had if they had not fallen ill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

proportional shortfall formula

A

disease related health loss (without the new treatment) / remaining health expectation in absence of the disease

example:
- Would have lived until age 80 years with QOL of 1 point
- Fell ill at age 20 years, QOL dropped from 1 to 0.5 and LE dropped from 80 to 40 years

((20 years * 0.5 QOL point + 40 years * 1 QOL point) / (60 years * 1 QOL point)) = 50/60 = 0.83

note: absolute shortfall is equal to the nominator in the proportional shortfall equation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

severity of illness

A

= focusses on the amount of health someone will lose in the future due to illness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Fair innings

A

focusses on lifetime health and consist of two arguments (not only focus on amount of health already lost)
1. equal innings argument
2. sufficient innings argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q
  1. equal innings argument
A

= people who have not yet had their fair inning (i.e., a ‘normal’ life-span of 70 QALYs in 1997) are worse off than those who have had their fair innings

–> dit houdt in dat iedereen een ‘equal’ recht heeft op hetzelfde aantal QALYs. Younger pateints are further away from 70 QALYs than older patients, so they are worse off when falling ill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q
  1. sufficient innings argument
A

= people who have had their fair innings are better of than those who have not (yet) had their fair innings; the further away from this fair innings, the worse they are considered to be

–> deze bouwt voort op het eerste argument: als iemand van de 70 QALYs bv heeft gehaald, dan wordt die persoon minder belangrijk voor gezondheidswinst en krijgen zij geen prioriteit voor behandeling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is considered to be a fair QALY expectancy?

A

There is no consensus about the fair innings, it is an ethical discussion. People born in 2000 had a higher fair innings, than people born in 1980, is this a fair difference? Between generation you get differences, because you use the QALY expectancy at birth as fair innings.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

fair innings example patient

A
  • Would have lived until age 80 years with QOL of 1 point
  • Fell ill at age 20 years, QOL dropped from 1 to 0.5 and LE dropped from 80 to 40 years
  • In the past, this patient has lost 5 years * 0.8 QOL points + 3 * 0.9 QOL points = 6.7 QALYs

Fair innings (at the moment of falling ill/need for treatment) = 20 years * 1 QOL point – 6.7 QALYs = 13.3 QALYs (out of 80 QALYs that may be considered fair)

Patients who are further removed from their fair innings are more worse off

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Severity of illness aim

A

= reduce inequalities in terms of current and future/prospective health in society

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

severity of illness standpoint

A

= the value of health gains is greater (weight >1) when gained by patients with lower levels of current and future prospective health without the new treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

severity of illness disregards

A

= patients’ past health and age

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

fair innings aim

A

= reduce inequalities in terms of lifetime health in society

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

fair innings standpoint

A

= everyone is entitled to have a ‘normal’ life-span and, therefore, the value of health gains is greater (weight >1 ) when gained by patients who lose a larger share of their lifetime health without treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

fair innings does NOT disregard

A

= patients’ past health (uses their age as a proxy)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Health care acts

A
  1. Youth Act
  2. Social Support Act
  3. Public Health Act
  4. Long-Term Care Act
  5. Health Insurance Act

1,2,3 are tax based. 4,5 are insurance based

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

policies demand side rationing health insurance act

A
  • Mandatory deductible of 385 EUR; voluntary deductible of +500 EUR against premium rebate of 240 EUR
  • Decisions on delineating basic benefits package made by Minister of Health, based on advice from the National Health Care Institute (ZIN)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Decision-making process of ZiN

A

1 scoping: exploring the situation and determening what information is needed
2 the assessment: collecting, presenting and assessing info
3 the apraisal: naming and wieghing up relevant arguments and determining the contribution to advice
4 formulating an dsubstantiating advice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Quantiative integration of equity consideration

A

Equity considerations can be integrated in the assessment stage of decision-making by weighting either the QALY gains (Qi) or the Monetary threshold (vi) in an economic evaluation:
- Attach equity weight (>1) to QALY gains, while keeping monetary threshold fixed (decision rule becomes: ∆ct/(w∆Qi) < vi)
- Attach equity weight (>1) to monetary threshold, while keeping QALY gains fixed (decision rule: ∆ct/∆Qi < wvi)
 the outcome is the same

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Increases likelihood that a health technology is cost-effective…?

A

∆ct/(w∆Qi) < vi: ICER becomes lower so it is easier to fall below vi
∆ct/∆Qi < wvi: vi becomes higher so it is easier for the ICER to fall below it
 you make it more likely that the treatment will fall under the monetary threshold

32
Q

Decision criteria NL

A
  1. Necessity of care
  2. effectiveness
  3. cost-effectiveness
  4. feasibility
33
Q

Decision framework

A

0.00-0.10 = €0 (w = 0)
0.11-0.40 = €20,000 (w = 1)
0.41-0.70 = €50,000 (w = 2.5)
0.71-1.00 = €80,000 (w = 4)

34
Q

Maximum reference value

A

Maximum reference value of 80,000 EUR/QALY was substantiated by:
- Rule of thumb <3 times GDP per capita (~90,000 EUR in NL) per DALY averted is good value for money for a health technology (WHO, 2002)
- Most reimbursed health technologies in the United Kingdom had an ICER of ~79,000 GBP/QALY (Devlin & Parker, 2004)
- Worldwide estimations of the value of a statistical life was ~80,000 EUR (Viscusi & Aldy, 2003)

35
Q

2 pos and neg afspects of the decision framework

A

Positive aspects:
1. Framework in line with theoretical and empirical evidence
2. Equity considerations systematically and transparently integrated (consistency between decisions)
Negative aspects:
1. Current range of equity weights (1-4) may be too high (not in line with empirical evidence and risk of welfare loss because of high opportunity costs)
2. A different severity operationalization may be better aligned with societal preferences
3. Equity considerations relating to patients’ age not taken into account (which would be in line with empirical evidence)

36
Q

How is discussion settled in the Netherlands?

A

ZIN integrates equity considerations based on proportional shortfall in assessment stage of decision-making process, and (since 2018) integrates equity considerations based on all individual elements of the PS equation in the appraisal stage. That is:
- Prospective health/rule of rescue
- Absolute shortfall

37
Q

Why is equity important when rationing health care?

A
  • Rationing can also be justified on the basis of equity
  • Equity of service use means that a person can access health care according to their need (rather than their capacity to pay).
  • People with greater need often gain more from health care than those who are healthy (i.e. > marginal benefit)
38
Q

UHC

A

Universal health coverage means that everyone has access to quality health care without suffering financial hardship. “health for all”

39
Q

UHC dimensions

A

population: who is covered?
services: which services are covered?
financial: what proportion of costs are covered?

40
Q

Why is health financing important for UHC

A

“Health systems are fuelled by their financing arrangements. These arrangements include the amount of funding the system receives, the ways funds are moved through the system to frontline providers, and the incentives created by the mechanisms used to pay providers.” - Lancet Commission on Financing for Primary Health Care

41
Q

Core health financing functions

A
  1. revenue raising
  2. pooling
  3. benefit design pagage
  4. purchasing
42
Q
  1. revenue raising
A

= the collection of revenue (e.g. taxes, insurance contributions, user fees) for the delivery of health services

43
Q
  1. pooling
A

= the accumulation of prepaid funds (e.g. taxes, insurance contributions, user fees) to pay for health services for a group of people

44
Q
  1. benefit design package
A

= the specification of the goods and services paid for by the purchaser using prepaid funds. It defines the entitlements as well as obligations of the covered population (e.g. free outpatient services at primary health care facility)

45
Q
  1. purchasing
A

= the mechanism by which mobilized and pooled funds are transferred to providers who deliver health services

46
Q

Four principles to guide health financing reforms in support of UHC

A
  1. move towards predominant reliance on compulsory (i.e. public) funding sources
  2. reduce fragmentation to enhance redistributional capacity (i.e. more prepayment, fewer prepayment schemes)
  3. pursue the progressive universalism of benefit and ensure coherence with policies on rationing
  4. move towards strategic purchasing to align the funding and incentives with promised servcies, promote efficiency and accountability, and sustain progress
47
Q

Increasing spending can improve health up to a point but efficiency matters always

A

life expectancy is shorter in countries with very low levels of health spending, but there are many factors other than spending that influence health

at higher levels of spending, there’s no clear relationship with life expectancy

48
Q

Not all revenue sources have potential to raise adequate, stable and equitable funds for health

A

Public
- Direct taxes (income and business taxes)
- indirect taxes (e.g. valued added tax VAT)
- non-tax revenue (e.g. resources rent and royalties)
- compulsory contributions (e.g. social health insurance SHI)

Private
- voluntary health insurance contributions VHI
- out-of-pocket spending OOPS (e.g. user fees)

External
- foreign aid (donors)

49
Q

From an equity perspective there are three types of funding sources

A
  • Progressive : relative contribution increases with wealth (e.g. income taxation)
  • Proportional : relative contribution is constant (e.g. social health insurance premium)
  • Regressive : relative contribution decreases wealth (e.g. flat user fees)
50
Q

In LMICs, most health spending comes from domestic sources especially out-of pockey

A

(most government health spending is associated with smaller share of out-of-pocket spending)

  • high income countries rely mostly on government sources
  • LMICs rely more heavily on out-of-pocket spending (OOPS)
  • external aid is still important for some LMICs
51
Q

Pooling averages out individual risk/expected costs

A
  • the main objective is to maximise the redistributive capacity of colleted funds
  • ideally pools are large in size, diverse in health risks, and participation is compulsory or automatic
52
Q

Fragmentation affects UHC objectives

A
  • Inequity in distribution of resources (and services) due to fragmentation of pools (e.g. population groups or geographic r egions) → uneven quality care and unmet need
  • Limits on financial protection due to redistribution barriers and small pools (e.g. community-based health health insurance) → financial hardship or foregone care
  • Inefficiencies in health system because of duplication of the administrative work required to manage pools (and purchase services) → higher costs and less potential gains from economies of scope/scale
53
Q

Benefit packages can be used to improve

A
  • Efficiency of the health system by prioritising primary health care (PHC) and cost-effective interventions
  • Transparency by communicating explicitly entitlements and obligations
  • Utilisation relative to need by reducing access barriers
  • Financial protection by reducing out-of-pocket spending for essential care
54
Q

Key criteria for guiding decisions on rationing and prioritizing services

A
  • health needs of population
  • cost-effectiveness of interventions
  • health maximization (e.g. QALYs)
  • equity in health
55
Q

Primary health care is at the core of most benefit packages (i.e. ‘what to buy’)

A
  • Definitions of PHC vary across countries but typically include:
    ▪ Multisectoral policies and population-based interventions (e.g. road safety legislation, tobacco taxes, media campaigns to promote healthy behaviours)
    ▪ Periodic outreach services (e.g. vector control, vaccinations, family planning)
    ▪ General outpatient care (e.g. safe abortion, antenatal and childcare, testing and treatment infectious diseases, screening, diagnosis and management of NCDs
    ▪ General inpatient care (e.g. complicated birth, surgery and trauma care)
56
Q

scale up essential health services until there’s universal access

A
  • Benefits should be communicated in a way that’s simple to understand. Confusion about entitlements and obligations is a barrier to access
  • Even when essential benefits are clearly defined, inequalities in effective coverage can remain
  • If benefits exceed what can be delivered, implicit (untransparent) rationing will result (i.e. denial of treatment, supply shortages, lower quality care)
57
Q

Reduce or eliminate out-of-pocket payments for all essential services

A
  • Even low co-payments are an obstacle to service use particularly in low-income groups
  • Fixed co-payments of an absolute amount are easier for people to understand than percentage co-payments because there is less uncertainty
  • The cost of medicines is a primary driver of out-of-pocket spending and poor financial protection in many countries.
58
Q

Purchasing is a continuum from ‘passive’ to ‘strategic’

A

Passive:
- resource allocation using norms (e.g. number of beds)
- little or no selection of providers
- little or no quality control
- price and quality taker

Strategic:
- payment systems that create deliberate incentives for efficiency, equity and quality
- selective contracting
- price and quality maker
- managing costs
- governance and coordination across providers

59
Q

Allocative efficiency

A
  • Can we better spend additional health care euros on something else (either other government spending or private consumption)?
  • Education etc
  • Maybe we can spend our extra income better on something else?
  • Already central question in CEA. Don’t really `need’ financial sustainability as a motivation…
60
Q

Marginal costs of public funds (MCPF)

A
  • Collective financing of health care comes at a cost:
  • Taxes distort individual decisions, e.g. to work
  • If you want to finance something, that is not free. Wordt betaald vanuit taxes. Als je meer uren werkt moet je meer geld afstaan als belasting dus dan ga je het misschien niet doen omdat je het niet waard vindt dat je maar weinig krijgt voor dat extra uur werken.
61
Q

Laffer Curve

A

above this point you loose earning, people starts working less. Productivity goes down and you loose money.
Laffer curve is strong exaggeration of MCPF

62
Q

Intertemporal budget constraint of the government

A

present value of remaining net tax payments of existing generations + present value of net tax payments of future generation = present value of all future government consumption - government net welath

63
Q

lifetime net benefits

A

= what do you pay to the government over your life and what do you get in return

64
Q

formula cost-effectiveness

A

In CEAs, we generally look at
Δc/ΔQ<v ,
where Δc is the discounted sum of all current and future costs and ΔQ the discounted sum of all current and future health gains.
The value of v (or k) and the way in which we discount future c and future Q reflects the willingness/ability to trade-off current gains in health versus future costs (or vice versa)

65
Q

V =

A

ability that we have to shift, are we willing to pay for HC costs now that we have to pay for later generations. Thresholds (intervention In cost analysis, what does this costs per patient and how much health gains it has) is the 20.000€ acceptable or not. What do you want to pay for additional health gains? What are we willing to pay for additional health gains? Should relate to how much are we willing to spend in the long run. Grenswaarde waaronder iets nog kosten effectief is, hoe veel ben je te bereid te betalen voor 1 QALY?

66
Q

fiscal rules

A

= aim to depoliticize policymaking and remove discretionary intervention; limit the ability to make drastic changes.
* Aim: predictability of government action (by committing to long run rules)

67
Q

Types of fiscal rules

A
  1. expenditure rules
  2. revenue rules
  3. debt rules
  4. balanced budget rules
68
Q

expenditure rules

A

= the total government spending is limited

69
Q

revenue rules

A

= limit the tax income that the government can raise

70
Q

debt rules

A

= the total government debt cannot be higher than for example 60%

71
Q

Effects of fiscal rules on government spending

A
  • Fiscal rules seem to have been successful in containing gov. spending
  • Rules which embedded expenditure targets worked best
  • Effect on transfers greater than on government consumption; social insurance is transfers. More likely to lower the insurance (link with visibility). Ze cutten eerder deze transfers dan hun eigen spending (dus bijv well fare of sickness benefits cutten). Omdat dit een relatief kleine populatie is, is dit een aantrekkelijkere optie voor ze.
  • Endogeneity is a big issue: countries with greater intrinsic fiscal discipline might be more likely to set up fiscal rules
72
Q

balance budget rules

A

each year the budget the expenditures and incomes have to match. A limited gap. (the difference between government income and spending cannot be higher than for example 6%

73
Q

Do fiscal rules curtail health spending? II

A
  • According to Schakel et al (2017):
  • Modest effects: association between having a fiscal rule in place and decrease in health spending is $100 per capita.
  • Interaction with health system design (e.g. level of decentralization)
  • Implicit allocative effect
  • Some sectors might be better protected against budget cuts than others (cure versus prevention)
  • Risk of cost-shifting from public to private
  • Again, identification of causal effects remains a big issue
74
Q

Three waves of reform

A
  • Wave 1 (50s-70/80’): Universal coverage and equal access  increasing access and expanding the ability of the medical sector
  • Wave 2 (80s-90s): Controls, Rationing, and Expenditure Caps
  • Limited supply, unlimited demand (waiting lists, dissatisfaction)
  • Limited incentives for efficiency; when you budget hc spending that you actually have incentives for incentives. You want to deliver the most value and the most health but does this happen that way?
  • Wave 3 (2000s): Incentives and competition
  • Not always delivered expected efficiency/saving gains
  • Concerns about adverse selection, behavioural limits to individual decision making
75
Q

containment policies

A
  • Long-term policy has followed the international trend:
  • Budgeting (80s/90s)
  • Market Oriented Policies to stimulate efficiency(00s/10’)
  • Increasing role of government and return of budgeting (and waiting lists?)
  • Major reforms, at least partly aimed at increased efficiency
  • Cure: Regulated competition 2006
  • Care: Long-term care reform, aimed at shift from institutional care to home- and informal care
  • Risk of cost-shifting very real
  • Hard to steer on efficiency in short-term policy:
  • Difficult to see how budget cuts/slices at the national level affect allocative decisions on lower levels (e.g. within the hospital)

BMG Year 3/4 (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions