International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume:10 Issue: 4, Apr 2021

Some agents representing the ‘receiving end’ of the medical-industrial complex could be called ‘career consumers.’ We identify these consucrats as a new class of intersectional representation of ‘those affected’ in healthcare delivery systems. We describe them in the context of (similar) abocrats and femocrats but show that consucrats face more complex and different level intersectional challenges. The designation, professionalization, and representation of consucrats are problematic, in particular for public policy change. We argue for an enhanced strategic and cautious role for the consumer health movement to support consucrats.

Responsible innovation in health (RIH) emphasizes the importance of developing technologies that are responsive to system-level challenges and support equitable and sustainable healthcare. To help decision-makers identify whether an innovation fulfills RIH requirements, we developed and validated an evidence-informed assessment tool comprised of 4 inclusion and exclusion criteria, 9 assessment attributes and a scoring system.

We conducted an inter-rater reliability assessment to establish the extent to which 2 raters agree when applying the RIH Tool to a diversified sample of health innovations (n = 25). Following the Tool’s 3-step process, sources of information were collected and cross-checked to ensure their clarity and relevance. Ratings were reported independently in a spreadsheet to generate the study’s database. To measure inter-rater reliability, we used: a non-adjusted index (percent agreement), a chance-adjusted index (Gwet’s AC) and the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results of the Tool’s application to the whole sample of innovations are summarized through descriptive statistics.

Our findings show complete agreement for the screening criteria, “almost perfect” agreement for 7 assessment attributes, “substantial” agreement for 2 attributes and “almost perfect” agreement for the RIH overall score. A large portion of the sample obtained high scores for 6 attributes (health relevance, health inequalities, responsiveness, level and intensity of care and frugality) and low scores for 3 attributes (ethical, legal, and social issues [ELSIs], inclusiveness and eco-responsibility). At the rating step, 88% of the innovations had a sufficient number of attributes documented (≥ 7/9), but the assessment was based on sources of moderate to high quality (mean score ≥ 2 points) for 36% of the sample. While “Almost all RIH features” were present for 24% of the innovations (RIH mean score between 4.1-5.0 points), “Many RIH features” were present for 52% of the sample (3.1-4.0 points) and “Few RIH features” were present for 24% of the innovations (2.1-3.0 points).

By confirming key aspects of the RIH Tool’s reliability and applicability, our study brings its development to completion. It can be jointly put into action by innovation stakeholders who want to foster innovations with greater social, economic and environmental value.

India faces a formidable challenge of providing universal health coverage to its uninsured population in the informal sector of the economy. Numerous micro health insurance (MHI) schemes have emerged as health financing mechanisms to reduce medical-illness-induced poverty. Existing research shows that the purchase of health insurance is most likely to be determined by health status, expected healthcare expenditure, and past health experiences in addition to socio-economic variables. We add to the understanding of various factors influencing enrolment in MHI from an Indian perspective.

A survey was carried out to collect quantitative data in three districts in the state of Karnataka, India.

We show that education does not matter as significantly as experience does, in the determination of new insurance purchases. In other words, the importance of new insurance is not understood by those who are merely educated, but by those who have either fallen ill, or have previously seen the hazards of usurious borrowing.

Our study provides deeper insights into the role of usurious borrowing and past illness in determining insurance purchases and highlights the formidable challenge of financial sustainability in the MHI market of India.

The knowledge of patients’ preferences in the medical decision-making process is gaining in importance. In this article we aimed to provide an overview on the importance of attributes underlying the choice of non-surgical treatments in people with low back pain (LBP).

A systematic mixed studies review was conducted. Articles were retrieved from the search engines PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus through June 21, 2018. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of the study, and each step was performed by 2 reviewers.

Analysis:

From a total of 390 articles, 13 were included in the systematic review, all of which were considered to be of good quality. Up to 40 attributes were found in studies using various methods. Effectiveness, ie, pain reduction, was the most important attribute considered by patients in their choice of treatment. This attribute was cited by 7 studies and was systematically ranked first or second in each. Other important attributes included the capacity to realize daily life activities, fit to patient’s life, and the credibility of the treatment, among others.

Pain reduction was the most important attribute underlying patients’ choice for treatment. However, this was not the only trait, and future research is needed to determine the relative importance of the attributes.

As global attention to improve the quality, safety and access to surgical care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) increases, the need for evidence-based strategies to reliably scale-up the quality and quantity of surgical services becomes ever more pertinent. Iversen et al discuss the optimal distribution of surgical services, whether through decentralization or regionalization, and propose a strategy that utilizes the dimensions of acuity, complexity and prevalence of surgical conditions to inform national priorities. Proposed expansion of this strategy to encompass levels of scale-up prioritization is discussed in this commentary. The decentralization of emergency obstetric services in LMICs shows promising results and should be further explored. The dearth of evidence of regionalization in LMICs, on the other hand, limits extrapolation of lessons learned. Nevertheless, principles from the successful regionalization of certain services such as trauma care in high-income countries (HICs) can be adapted to LMIC settings and can provide the backbone for innovation in service delivery and safety.

The question of how to optimally design health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for high quality care and survival requires context-specific evidence on which level of the health system is best positioned to deliver services. Given documented poor quality of care for surgical conditions in LMICs, evidence to support intentional health system design is urgently needed. Iverson and colleagues address this very important question. This commentary explores their findings with particular attention to how they apply to maternity care. Though surgical maternity care is a common healthcare need, maternal complications are often unpredictable and require immediate surgical attention in order to avert serious morbidity or mortality. A discussion of decentralization for maternity services must grapple with this tension and differentiate between facilities that can provide emergency surgical care and those that can not.

According to Iverson and colleagues’ thoughtful analysis, decisions to decentralize or regionalize surgical services must take into account contextual realities that may impede the safe execution of certain delivery models in lowand middle-income countries (LMICs), and should be governed by procedure-related considerations (specifically, volume, patient acuity, and procedure complexity). This commentary suggests that, by shifting attention to the mechanisms whereby (de)centralization may exert beneficial impacts, it is possible to generate guidance applicable to countries across the socioeconomic spectrum. Four key mechanisms can be identified: decentralization (1) minimizes the need for patients to travel for care and, (2) obviates certain system-induced delays once patients present; centralization (3) facilitates the maintenance of a workforce with sufficient expertise to offer services safely, and (4) conserves resources by limiting the number of sites. The commentary elucidates how context- and procedure-related factors determine the importance of each mechanism, allowing planners to prioritize among them. Although some context factors have special relevance to LMICs, most can also appear in high-income countries (HICs), and the procedure-related factors are universal. Thus, evidence from countries at all income levels might be fruitfully combined into an integrated body of context-sensitive guidance.

Tenbensel and colleagues identify that a target for emergency department (ED) stays in New Zealand met with gaming in response from local hospitals. The result is in line with studies in other jurisdictions. The enthusiasm for targets and tight performance measurement in some health systems reflects a lack of trust in professionals to do the right thing for altruistic reasons. However such measurement systems have failed to address this loss of trust and may, ironically, have worsened the situation. A more promising approach for both improving performance and restoring trust may depend upon collaboration and partnership between consumers, local providers, and central agencies in agreeing and tracking appropriate local responses to high level national goals rather than imposing tight, and potentially misleading measures from the centre.

For decades, observers have noted that gaming of performance measurement appears to be both endemic and endlessly creative. A recent study by Tenbensel and colleagues provides a detailed look at gaming of a health system performance measure—emergency department (ED) wait time —within four hospitals in New Zealand. Combined, these four hospitals handled more than 25% of the ED visits in the country each year. Tenbensel and colleagues examine whether the New Zealand ED wait time target was set appropriately and whether we can trust any performance measure statistics that are not independently verified or audited. Their thought-provoking examination is relevant to anyone working in quality improvement and provides a valuable set of tools for detecting gaming in performance measurement.

Legitimacy of deliberation processes leading to recommendations for public financing or clinical practice depends on the data considered, stakeholders involved and the process by which both of these are selected and organised. Oortwijn et al provides an interesting exploration of processes currently in place in health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. However, agencies are struggling with core issues central to their legitimacy that goes beyond the procedural exploration of Oortwijn et al, such as: how processes reflect the mission and values of the agencies? How they ensure that recommendations are fair and reasonable? Which role should be given to public and patient involvement? Do agencies have a positive impact on the healthcare system and the populations served? What are the drivers of their evolution? We concur with Culyer commentary on the need of learning from doing what works best and that a reflection is indeed needed to “enhance the fairness and legitimacy of HTA.”

This comment reflects on an article by Oortwijn, Jansen, and Baltussen about the use and features of ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ (EDPs) among health technology assessment (HTA) agencies around the world and the need for more guidance. First, we highlight procedural aspects that are relevant across key steps of EDP, focusing on conflict of interest, the different roles of stakeholders throughout a HTA and public justification of decisions. Second, we discuss new knowledge and models needed to maximize the value of deliberative processes at the expanding frontiers of HTA, paying special attention to when HTA is applied in primary care, employed for public health interventions, and is produced through international collaboration.