荷兰长期照护系统行政成本的追踪与追踪

Q2 Health Professions
L. Hagenaars, O. V. Hilten, N. Klazinga, P. Jeurissen
{"title":"荷兰长期照护系统行政成本的追踪与追踪","authors":"L. Hagenaars, O. V. Hilten, N. Klazinga, P. Jeurissen","doi":"10.31389/jltc.68","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Practitioners and politicians alike emphasise the wish to reduce administrative costs (AC) in Dutch LTC, but a robust empirical body of evidence on the components, determinants and value of AC in LTC is absent. Neither has the expert consensus of ways to track and trace AC in LTC been sought. Objective(s): We investigated whether it is possible to reach consensus on operationalising AC in Dutch LTC. Successively we also explored whether the Dutch LTC reform in 2015 had the intended effect of reducing AC. Methods: We differentiated between AC for governing and financing LTC (macro), overhead costs of LTC delivery organisations (meso) and AC on the level of professional care delivery activities (micro). We identified possible data sources in grey literature and national accounts. The quality and completeness of identified data and potential determinants of AC were validated by experts via a survey and focus group discussions. Findings: We were able to reach agreement on how to track AC in Dutch LTC, but current research instruments and data systems are not robust and consistent enough to trace differences before and after the 2015 reform. Limitations: We did not investigate AC experienced by patients and self-selected participating experts. Implications: AC concern a considerable share of total LTC spending, but AC are hidden in regular health expenditure statistics. Our study highlights three approaches for a more sophisticated and fact-based policy debate on reducing low-value AC; defining AC on macro, meso and micro levels of the health care system, determining the underlying value/use of activities; and focusing on interactions of AC between system levels.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Track and Trace of Administrative Costs in the Dutch Long-Term Care System\",\"authors\":\"L. Hagenaars, O. V. Hilten, N. Klazinga, P. Jeurissen\",\"doi\":\"10.31389/jltc.68\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: Practitioners and politicians alike emphasise the wish to reduce administrative costs (AC) in Dutch LTC, but a robust empirical body of evidence on the components, determinants and value of AC in LTC is absent. Neither has the expert consensus of ways to track and trace AC in LTC been sought. Objective(s): We investigated whether it is possible to reach consensus on operationalising AC in Dutch LTC. Successively we also explored whether the Dutch LTC reform in 2015 had the intended effect of reducing AC. Methods: We differentiated between AC for governing and financing LTC (macro), overhead costs of LTC delivery organisations (meso) and AC on the level of professional care delivery activities (micro). We identified possible data sources in grey literature and national accounts. The quality and completeness of identified data and potential determinants of AC were validated by experts via a survey and focus group discussions. Findings: We were able to reach agreement on how to track AC in Dutch LTC, but current research instruments and data systems are not robust and consistent enough to trace differences before and after the 2015 reform. Limitations: We did not investigate AC experienced by patients and self-selected participating experts. Implications: AC concern a considerable share of total LTC spending, but AC are hidden in regular health expenditure statistics. Our study highlights three approaches for a more sophisticated and fact-based policy debate on reducing low-value AC; defining AC on macro, meso and micro levels of the health care system, determining the underlying value/use of activities; and focusing on interactions of AC between system levels.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of long-term care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of long-term care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.68\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.68","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:从业者和政治家都强调希望降低荷兰长期护理的行政成本,但缺乏关于长期护理中行政成本的组成部分、决定因素和价值的有力经验证据。也没有就LTC中AC的追踪方法达成专家共识。目标:我们调查了是否有可能就在荷兰LTC中实施AC达成共识。接下来,我们还探讨了2015年荷兰长期护理改革是否具有减少AC的预期效果。方法:我们区分了长期护理管理和融资的AC(宏观)、长期护理提供组织的管理费用(微观)和专业护理提供活动水平的AC(微观)。我们在灰色文献和国民账户中确定了可能的数据来源。专家们通过调查和焦点小组讨论验证了已确定数据的质量和完整性以及AC的潜在决定因素。研究结果:我们能够就如何追踪荷兰LTC中的AC达成一致,但目前的研究工具和数据系统不够健全和一致,无法追踪2015年改革前后的差异。局限性:我们没有调查患者和自行选择的参与专家所经历的AC。影响:AC在LTC总支出中占相当大的份额,但AC隐藏在常规医疗支出统计中。我们的研究强调了关于减少低价值AC的更复杂和基于事实的政策辩论的三种方法;在医疗保健系统的宏观、中期和微观层面上确定AC,确定活动的潜在价值/用途;以及关注AC在系统级别之间的交互。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Track and Trace of Administrative Costs in the Dutch Long-Term Care System
Context: Practitioners and politicians alike emphasise the wish to reduce administrative costs (AC) in Dutch LTC, but a robust empirical body of evidence on the components, determinants and value of AC in LTC is absent. Neither has the expert consensus of ways to track and trace AC in LTC been sought. Objective(s): We investigated whether it is possible to reach consensus on operationalising AC in Dutch LTC. Successively we also explored whether the Dutch LTC reform in 2015 had the intended effect of reducing AC. Methods: We differentiated between AC for governing and financing LTC (macro), overhead costs of LTC delivery organisations (meso) and AC on the level of professional care delivery activities (micro). We identified possible data sources in grey literature and national accounts. The quality and completeness of identified data and potential determinants of AC were validated by experts via a survey and focus group discussions. Findings: We were able to reach agreement on how to track AC in Dutch LTC, but current research instruments and data systems are not robust and consistent enough to trace differences before and after the 2015 reform. Limitations: We did not investigate AC experienced by patients and self-selected participating experts. Implications: AC concern a considerable share of total LTC spending, but AC are hidden in regular health expenditure statistics. Our study highlights three approaches for a more sophisticated and fact-based policy debate on reducing low-value AC; defining AC on macro, meso and micro levels of the health care system, determining the underlying value/use of activities; and focusing on interactions of AC between system levels.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
33 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信