Traditional provider payment mechanisms may not create appropriate incentives for integrating care. Alternative payment mechanisms, such as bundled payments, have been introduced without uniform definitions, and existing payment typologies are not suitable for describing them. We use a systematic review combined with example integrated care programmes identified from practice in the Horizon2020 SELFIE project to inform a new typology of payment mechanisms for integrated care. The typology describes payments in terms of the scope of payment (Target population, Time, Sectors), the participation of providers (Provider coverage, Financial pooling/sharing), and the single provider/patient involvement (Income, Multiple disease/needs focus, and Quality measurement). There is a gap between rhetoric on the need for new payment mechanisms and those implemented in practice. Current payments for integrated care are mostly sector- and disease-specific, with questionable impact on those with the most need for integrated care. The typology provides a basis to improve financial incentives supporting more effective and efficient integrated care systems.

Countries rely on out-of-pocket (OOP) spending to different degrees and employ varying techniques. The article examines trends in OOP spending in ten high-income countries since 2000, and analyzes their relationship to self-assessed barriers to accessing health care services. The countries are Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Data from three sources are employed: OECD statistics, the Commonwealth Fund survey of individuals in each of ten countries, and country-specific documents on health care policies. Based on trends in OOP spending, we divide the ten countries into three groups and analyze both trends and access barriers accordingly. As part of this effort, we propose a conceptual model for understanding the key components of OOP spending. There is a great deal of variation in aggregate OOP spending per capita spending but there has been convergence over time, with the lowest-spending countries continuing to show growth and the highest spending countries showing stability. Both the level of aggregate OOP spending and changes in spending affect perceived access barriers, although there is not a perfect correspondence between the two. There is a need for better understanding the root causes of OOP spending. This will require data collection that is broken down into OOP resulting from cost sharing and OOP resulting from direct payments (due to underinsurance and lacking benefits). Moreover, data should be disaggregated by consumer groups (e.g. income-level or health status). Only then can we better link the data to specific policies and suggest effective solutions to policy makers.

This article maps current approaches to public reporting on waiting times, patient experience and aggregate measures of quality and safety in 11 high-income countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States). Using a questionnaire-based survey of key national informants, we found that the data most commonly made available to the public are on waiting times for hospital treatment, being reported for major hospitals in seven countries. Information on patient experience at hospital level is also made available in many countries, but it is not generally available in respect of primary care services. Only one of the 11 countries (England) publishes composite measures of overall quality and safety of care that allow the ranking of providers of hospital care. Similarly, the publication of information on outcomes of individual physicians remains rare. We conclude that public reporting of aggregate measures of quality and safety, as well as of outcomes of individual physicians, remain relatively uncommon. This is likely to be due to both unresolved methodological and ethical problems and concerns that public reporting may lead to unintended consequences.

Strategic purchasing of health care services is widely recommended as a policy instrument. We conducted a review of literature of material drawn from the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Health Systems in Transition series, other European Observatory databases, and selected country-specific literature to augment the comparative analysis by providing the most recent healthcare trends in ten selected countries. There is little evidence of purchasing being strategic according to any of the established definitions. There is little or no literature suggesting that existing purchasing mechanisms in Europe deliver improved population health, citizen empowerment, stronger governance and stewardship, or develop purchaser organization and capacity. Strategic purchasing has not generally been implemented. Policymakers considering adopting strategic purchasing policies should be aware of this systemic implementation problem. Policymakers in systems with strategic purchasing built into policy should not assume that a purchasing system is strategic or that it is delivering any expected objectives. However, there are individual components of strategic purchasing that are worth pursuing and can provide benefits to health systems.