Policy innovations in tax funded and social insurance health systems: A comparative analysis
description
Transcript of Policy innovations in tax funded and social insurance health systems: A comparative analysis
Tim Tenbensel Revital Gross
Introduction: Policy innovations
Definition – policy innovation – a new strategy or approach to achieve health system goals
Includes a variety of measures: statements e.g. proposals, legislation, incentives, structural change, monitoring/evaluation
We refer to policy innovations initiated by government which have a system-wide impact
2
The questionsIn what ways does the mode of funding health
systems (taxation or social insurance) affect:The health system objectives that innovations
address? Access & equity, efficiency, quality, population health
The nature of the tools for change (policy instruments) used? Christopher Hood’s NATO scheme for all policy issues
(N)odality (information); (A)uthority (legislation); (T)reasure (additional funding); (O)rganisation (structure)
Other policy tools (changes to) responsibility for paying for health services;
workforce initiatives; technology; standards & targets; research
Importance of topic Theoretical value:
Although comparisons between health systems have been conducted, the implications of differences for policy innovation have not been formerly explored
Our analysis will help in developing a conceptual framework for future studies on this topic
Practical value: Analysis may help to indicate which innovations
are less ‘context-dependent’ and therefore more amenable to transfer
4
Why might we expect differences?
Structure of health systems affects many parameters
- (e.g. incentives to providers, costs, quality of service, service delivery, power structure); reasonable to assume it will also affect process of policy innovation
Systems shape the capacity of policy actors to act
- ability/power to change- different access to resources needed for change- reasonable to assume this will lead to differences in the
process of policy innovation (which is a change process)
Path dependency- Historical, institutional & cultural circumstances that
shaped system may have similar effects on other system features including policy innovation
5
Why might we expect similarities?
Objectives of access / equity, efficiency, quality and population health are not context-dependent, they are widely shared
All governments have a similar range of policy instruments at their disposal
Universal trends - countries learn from each other
6
MethodAnalysis of innovations reported by network members
of the Bertelsmann Foundation Health Policy Monitor (HPM) in the years 2003-2007
six countries chosen:Canada, New Zealand, Finland (taxation)Israel, Netherlands, Switzerland (social insurance)196 policy innovations reported
Innovations proposed by non-govt actors excluded Reports of the progress of previously reported innovations
excludedFinal dataset of 137 innovations (87 from tax-funded
systems, 50 from social insurance funded systems)7
CodingHealth system objectives –
5 values Access and/or equity Efficiency Quality Population Health Other
For both variables, cases may have more than one value for each variable
Tool for change (policy instrument) – 7 values Additional Funding Legislation / regulation Payment mechanisms Organisation / structure Information / research Standards / targets Workforce / technology
LimitationsThe HPM database does not include
all innovations in each countryMember countries can only report 10 initiatives per
yearReported innovations may not be representative of
country’s innovations.Selection of cases is not large enough to rule out
the effect of other relevant variablesPolitical complexion of governments5 years may not be long enough to capture variety
9
Health system objectives
Access (including equity), in most but many more initiatives reported in tax-funded systems
Efficiency in all, but many more examples in social insurance systems
Quality-related innovations prevalent in all countries
Population health outcomes in most; many in NZ
12
Possible explanationsFinding that social insurance systems concentrate
more on efficiency is plausible (a more pressing problem?)However, tax-funded systems have greater leverage
Tax-funded systems more interested in access & equity ( because they can influence this more directly?)
Influence of political complexion of governments (2003 -07) cannot be ruled out (all SI countries had centre-right govts in this period)
Time period is significant (both Canada and New Zealand were highly focused on efficiency in 1990s)
Tools for change (policy instruments)
Tools for change (policy instruments)
Tool for change by country
Tool for change by country
Tool for change Additional funding – mainly in tax-funded systemsChanges in payment responsibility – mainly in social
insurance systemsLegislating - in all to varying extents
Difference in systems mainly accounted for by difference between Switzerland and Canada
Structural and organisational change - in all except Switzerland (but may refer to different ways of restructuring);
Workforce & technology: in all countries except Switzerland
Standards & targets: in all countriesInformation & research: in all countries except Netherlands
18
Possible explanationsAdditional funding & changes to payment responsibilityIn tax-funded systems government is responsible for services;
may lead to a greater incentive to allocate extra funding. In social insurance systems providers are responsible;
government can demand more with existing funding levels. Government has less control on use of funds and thus reluctant to
provide extra funding. In social insurance systems governments tend to propose ways
of cost-shifting to reduce government expensesIn tax-funded systems, costs can only be shifted to patients
19
Possible explanationsLegislation
Switzerland’s pervasive use of legislation, and Canada’s light use of legislation are both due to particularities of federalism Switzerland: legislative process more central to co-
operative policymaking between national level and cantons
Canada: provinces have legislative responsibility for most health system matters Federal/provincial tensions likely to be resolved
through additional fundingIn other countries, only a small difference in
propensity to use legislation
ConclusionType of funding appears to influence
Some tools for change (not surprisingly, those related to funding and payment)
Type of funding may influenceBalance of health system objectives (but we
cannot rule out effect of governing parties)Type of funding appears not to influence
Degree of emphasis on qualityPropensity to use policy instruments not related
to funding