BACKGROUND: This study investigated how patient representatives have experienced their involvement in medicines appraisal and reimbursement processes with the Council for Choices in Health Care in Finland (COHERE) and the Pharmaceuticals Pricing Board (PPB) and how authorities perceive the role of patient organizations\' input.
METHODS: Semi-structured thematic individual and pair interviews were conducted in 2021 with representatives (n = 14) of patient organizations and government officials (n = 7) of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. The interview data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS: Patient representatives expressed their appreciation for the PPB and the COHERE in creating consultation processes and systematic models that support involvement. However, there were many challenges: patient representatives were uncertain about how their submissions were utilized in official processes and whether their opinions had any significance in decision-making. Patients or patient organizations lack representation in appraisal and decision-making bodies, and patient representatives felt that decision-making lacked transparency. The importance of patient involvement was highlighted by the authorities, but they also emphasized that the patient organizations\' contributions were complementary to the other materials. Submissions regarding the medications used to treat rare diseases and those with limited research evidence were considered particularly valuable. However, the submissions may not necessarily have a direct impact on decisions.
CONCLUSIONS: The interviews provided relevant input for the development of involvement processes at the PPB and COHERE. The interviews confirmed the need for increased transparency in the medicines assessment, appraisal, and decision-making procedures in Finland.

BACKGROUND: The use of policies in medical treatment reimbursement decisions, in which only future patients are affected, prompts a moral dilemma: is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment?
METHODS: Through a preregistered behavioral experiment involving 1,067 participants, we tested variations in public attitudes concerning withdrawing and withholding treatments at both the bedside and policy levels.
RESULTS: In line with our first hypothesis, participants were more supportive of rationing decisions presented as withholding treatments compared with withdrawing treatments. Contrary to our second prestated hypothesis, participants were more supportive of decisions to withdraw treatment made at the bedside level compared with similar decisions made at the policy level.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide behavioral insights that help explain the common use of policies affecting only future patients in medical reimbursement decisions, despite normative concerns of such policies. In addition, our results may have implications for communication strategies when making decisions regarding treatment reimbursement.
CONCLUSIONS: We explore public\' attitudes toward withdrawing and withholding treatments and how the decision level (bedside or policy level) matters.People were more supportive of withholding medical treatment than of withdrawing equivalent treatment.People were more supportive of treatment withdrawal made at the bedside than at the policy level.Our findings help clarify why common-use policies, which impact only future patients in medical reimbursement decision, are implemented despite the normative concerns associted with thesepolicies.

BACKGROUND: The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) was set up to recruit 26 000 additional staff into general practice by 2024, with the aim of increasing patient access to appointments. Despite the potential benefits of integrating ARRS practitioners into primary care, their implementation has not always been straightforward.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the challenges and enablers to implementation of the ARRS including its impact on primary and secondary care systems.
METHODS: Qualitative interview study with ARRS healthcare professionals and key professional stakeholders involved in staff education or scheme implementation across three integrated care systems in England.
METHODS: Participants (n = 37) were interviewed using semi-structured individual or paired interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using framework analysis until data saturation occurred.
RESULTS: Using framework analysis, 10 categories were identified. Three were categorised as successes: staff valued but their impact unclear; multiple and certain roles maximise impact; and training hub support. Seven were categorised as challenges: scheme inflexibility; creating a sustainable workforce with career progression; managing scope and expectations; navigating supervision and roadmap progression; infrastructure and integration challenges; ARRS roles impact on wider systems; and tensions and perspectives of existing staff.
CONCLUSIONS: Most ARRS staff felt valued, but the scheme broadened expertise available in primary care rather than reducing GP burden, which was originally anticipated. Some PCNs, especially those in areas of high deprivation, found it difficult to meet the population\'s needs as a result of the scheme\'s inflexibility, potentially leading to greater health inequalities in primary care. Recommendations are proposed to optimise the effective implementation of the primary care workforce model. Further research is required to explore administrative role solutions, further understand the impact of health inequalities, and investigate the wellbeing of ARRS staff.

BACKGROUND: The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) provides funding to Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in England to recruit additional staff into specified roles. The intention was to support general practice by recruiting an extra 26 000 staff by 2024, increasing access and easing workload pressures.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the establishment of the ARRS as part of PCNs\' development to understand their role in supporting general practice.
METHODS: A longitudinal, qualitative case study involving seven geographically dispersed PCNs across England.
METHODS: Data were collected from July 2020 to March 2022, including 91 semi-structured interviews and 87 h of meeting observations. Transcripts were analysed using the framework approach.
RESULTS: Implementation of the ARRS was variable across the study sites, but most shared similar experiences and concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the introduction of the new roles, and significant variability was found in modes of employment. Cross-cutting issues included: the need for additional space to accommodate new staff; the inflexibility of aspects of the scheme, including reinvestment of unspent funds; and the need for support and oversight of employed staff. Perceived benefits of the ARRS include improved patient care and the potential to save GP time.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest the ARRS has potential to fulfil its objective of supporting and improving access to general practice. However, attention to operational requirements including appropriate funding, estates, and management of staff is important if this is to be realised, as is clarity for the scheme post-contract end in 2024.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 30 years post legalisation and introduction, midwifery is still not optimally integrated within the health system of Canada\'s largest province, Ontario. Funding models have been identified as one of the main barriers.
METHODS: Using a constructivist perspective, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study to examine how antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum funding arrangements in Ontario impact midwifery integration. We conceptualized optimal \'integration\' as circumstances in which midwives\' knowledge, skills, and model of care are broadly respected and fully utilized, interprofessional collaboration and referral support the best possible care for patients, and midwives feel a sense of belonging within hospitals and the greater health system. We collected data through semi-structured telephone interviews with midwives, obstetricians, family physicians, and nurses. The data was examined using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: We interviewed 20 participants, including 5 obstetricians, 5 family physicians, 5 midwives, 4 nurses, and 1 policy expert. We found that while course-of-care-based midwifery funding is perceived to support high levels of midwifery client satisfaction and excellent clinical outcomes, it lacks flexibility. This limits opportunities for interprofessional collaboration and for midwives to use their knowledge and skills to respond to health system gaps. The physician fee-for-service funding model creates competition for births, has unintended consequences that limit midwives\' scope and access to hospital privileges, and fails to appropriately compensate physician consultants, particularly as midwifery volumes grow. Siloing of midwifery funding from hospital funding further restricts innovative contributions from midwives to respond to community healthcare needs.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant policy changes, such as adequate remuneration for consultants, possibly including salary-based physician funding; flexibility to compensate midwives for care beyond the existing course of care model; and a clearly articulated health human resource plan for sexual and reproductive care are needed to improve midwifery integration.

Despite evidence to support the integration of behavioral health and physical health care, the adoption of Integrated Behavioral Health (IBH) has been stymied by a lack of reliable and sustainable financing mechanisms. This study aimed to provide information on the use of Psychiatric Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) and behavioral health integration (BHI) codes and the implementation of IBH in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).
This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study involved an electronic survey of administrators and follow-up qualitative interviews from a subset of survey respondents. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and thematic coding was used to analyze qualitative data to identify salient themes.
Administrators (N = 52) from 11 states completed the survey. Use of CoCM (13%) or BHI codes (17.4%) was low. Most administrators were not aware that CoCM (72%) or BHI codes (70%) existed. Qualitative interviews (n = 9) described barriers that further complicate IBH and code use like workforce shortages and insufficient reimbursement for the cost to deliver CoCM services.
Although FQHCs are working to meet the needs of the communities they serve, a lack of billing clarity and awareness and workforce issues hinder the adoption of the CoCM. FQHCs face many demands to provide care to safety net populations, yet are not fully equipped with the resources, workflows, staffing, and payment structures to support CoCM/BHI billing. Increased financial and logistical support to build practice infrastructure is needed to reduce the administrative complexity and inadequate reimbursement mechanisms that currently hinder the implementation of the CoCM and integrated care delivery. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

BACKGROUND: Affordability and accessibility of hospital care are under pressure. Research on hospital care financing focuses primarily on incentives in the financial system outside the hospital. It is notable that little is known about (incentives in) internal funding in hospitals. Therefore, our study focuses on the budget allocation in hospitals: the distribution model. Based on our hypothesis that the reimbursement and distribution models in hospitals might interact, we gain knowledge about-, and insight into, the interaction of different reimbursement and distribution models used in Dutch hospitals, and how they affect the financial output of hospital care.
METHODS: An online survey with 22 questions was conducted among financial senior management as an expert group in 49 Dutch hospitals.
RESULTS: Ultimately, 38 of 49 approached experts fully completed the survey, which amounts to 78% of the hospitals we approached and 60% of all Dutch hospitals. The results on the reimbursement model indicate price * volume with adjusted prices above a maximum cap as the most common dominant contract type. On the internal distribution model, 75-80% of the experts reported incremental budgeting as the dominant budgeting method. Results on the interaction between the reimbursement and the distribution model show that both general and specific changes in contract agreements are only partially incorporated in hospital budgets. In 28 out of 31 hospitals with self-employed medical specialists, a relation is reported between the reimbursement model and the contracts with the Medical Consultant Group(s) in which the medical specialists are united.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results in Dutch setting indicate a limited interaction between the reimbursement model and the distribution model. This lack of congruence between both models might limit the desired effects of incentives in contractual agreements aimed at the financial output. This applies to different reimbursement and distribution models. Further research into the various interactions and incentives, as visualized in our conceptual framework, could result in evidence-based advice for achieving affordable and accessible hospital care.

There are inequalities in the geographical distribution of the primary care workforce in England. Primary care networks (PCNs), and the associated Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) funding, have stimulated employment of new healthcare roles. However, it is not clear whether this will impact inequalities.
To examine whether the ARRS impacted inequality in the distribution of the primary care workforce.
A retrospective before-and-after study of English PCNs in 2019 and 2022.
The study combined workforce, population, and deprivation data at network level for March 2019 and March 2022. The change was estimated between 2019 and 2022 in the slope index of inequality (SII) across deprivation of full-time equivalent (FTE) GPs (total doctors, qualified GPs, and doctors-in-training), nurses, direct patient care, administrative, ARRS and non- ARRS, and total staff per 10 000 patients.
A total of 1255 networks were included. Nurses and qualified GPs decreased in number while all other staff roles increased, with ARRS staff having the greatest increase. There was a pro- rich change in the SII for administrative staff (-0.482, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.841 to -0.122, P<0.01) and a pro- poor change for doctors-in-training (0.161, 95% CI = 0.049 to 0.274, P<0.01). Changes in distribution of all other staff types were not statistically significant.
Between 2019 and 2022 the distribution of administrative staff became less pro-poor, and doctors-in-training became pro-poor. The changes in inequality in all other staff groups were mixed. The introduction of PCNs has not substantially changed the longstanding inequalities in the geographical distribution of the primary care workforce.

Long waiting times for health care services are a prominent health policy issue. Waiting time guarantees may limit time to assessment and treatment.
This study aims to investigate the information and support given to patients when the waiting time guarantee cannot be fulfilled from a care provider and administrative management perspective. Semi-structured interviews (N = 28) were conducted with administrative management and care providers (clinic staff and clinic line managers) in specialized clinics in the Stockholm Region, Sweden. Clinics were purposefully sampled for maximum variation in ownership (private, public), complexity of care, geographical location, volume of production, and waiting times. Thematic analysis was applied.
Care providers reported that patients received inconsistent information and support with regard to the waiting time guarantee and that information was not adapted to health literacy or individual patient needs. Contrary to local law, they made some patients responsible for finding a new care provider or arranging a new referral. Furthermore, financial interests affected whether patients were referred to other providers. Administrative management steered care providers\' informing practices at specific time points (upon establishment of a new unit and after six months of operation). A specific regional support function, Region Stockholm\'s Care Guarantee Office, helped patients change care providers when long waiting times occurred. However, administrative management perceived that there was no established routine to assist care providers in informing patients.
Care providers did not consider patients\' health literacy when informing them about the waiting time guarantee. Administrative management\'s attempts to provide information and support to care providers are not producing the results they expect. Soft-law regulations and care contracts seem insufficient, and economic mechanisms undermine care providers\' willingness to inform patients. The described actions are unable to mitigate the inequality in health care that arises from differences in care-seeking behavior.

Background: Global payment system is a kind of case-based payment system which pays for 60 commonly surgical operations by the average cost for each specified surgery case in Iran. The aim of the study was to determine the effect of this payment system on the number of services provided for each global surgical case versus fee-for-service (FFS) for the same operation. Methods: This is a retrospective study based on data from a large referral teaching hospital in Iran in the period of 2012-2015. Information related to 46 surgeries was performed which both global and FFS documents were gathered (N=7672). Statistical analysis was done on variables including Length of stay (LOS), Blood test (BT), Radiology (RA) and a mixed variable named VC (visit and consult number). Data were analyzed by a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model using STATA 11. Results: Descriptive analysis showed the mean of each service was significantly (p<0.001) higher in the FFS document\'s group rather than the global payment group. Regression estimates showed the amounts of each service including LOS, BT, RA and VC were significantly (p<0.001) higher in FFS surgery than global documents for the 15 selected surgery. LOS and BT have shown a significantly higher amount in 100% of surgeries for FFS above global document. Same as for Radiology test and VC variables, there were significantly higher amounts in 93% of surgeries for FFS above global hospital documents. Conclusion: The findings can reinforce the presence of a relationship between providing more clinical services in FFS document form and providers\' incentives to adjust profits against their Costs. The significantly higher service provision in FFS documents can be controlled with a prospective global payment mechanism.