SummaryEuropean countries have enhanced the scope of private provision within their health care systems. Privatizing services have been suggested as a means to improve access, quality, and efficiency in health care. This raises questions about the relative performance of private hospitals compared with public hospitals. Most systematic reviews that scrutinize the performance of the private hospitals originate from the United States. A systematic overview for Europe is nonexisting. We fill this gap with a systematic realist review comparing the performance of public hospitals to private hospitals on efficiency, accessibility, and quality of care in the European Union. This review synthesizes evidence from Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Greece, Austria, Spain, and Portugal. Most evidence suggests that public hospitals are at least as efficient as or are more efficient than private hospitals. Accessibility to broader populations is often a matter of concern in private provision: Patients with higher social‐economic backgrounds hold better access to private hospital provision, especially in private parallel systems such as the United Kingdom and Greece. The existing evidence on quality of care is often too diverse to make a conclusive statement. In conclusion, the growth in private hospital provision seems not related to improvements in performance in Europe. Our evidence further suggests that the private (for‐profit) hospital sector seems to react more strongly to (financial) incentives than other provider types. In such cases, policymakers either should very carefully develop adequate incentive structures or be hesitant to accommodate the growth of the private hospital sector.

No abstract

This exploratory, mixed-methods study analyzes characteristics of the emerging for-profit nursing home industry in the Netherlands and identifies the interrelated set of factors (context, trends, and sector conditions) that contribute to its growth. Until recently, the Dutch nursing home sector relied almost exclusively on nonprofit providers. Even though profit distribution in nursing home care is still banned, the for-profit nursing home sector is expanding. The study uses economic theory on nonprofit organizations and mixed-form markets to understand this expansion. We find that changes in the regulatory framework have unlocked the potential of the for-profit nursing home sector, enabling for-profit nursing homes to circumvent the for-profit ban. The expansion of the for-profit sector was mainly driven by the low responsiveness of the nonprofit sector to increased and changed demands. For-profit providers took advantage of this void. Moreover, they exploited “cream-skimming” potential in the market and used the wider care system to reduce their labor costs by relying on external specialist care. Another main driver was the access to financial capital from private investors (e.g., private equity firms).

Objective To identify differences between independent treatment centers (ITCs) and general hospitals (GHs) regarding costs, quality of care, and efficiency. Data Sources Anonymous claims data (2013‐2015) were used. We also obtained quality indicators from a semipublic platform. Study Design This study uses a comparative multilevel analysis, controlling for case mix, to evaluate the performance of ITCs and GHs for patients diagnosed with cataract. Data Collection Reimbursement claims were extracted from existing claims databases of the largest Dutch health insurer. Quality indicators were obtained by external agencies through a mixed‐mode survey. Principal Findings There are no stark differences in complexity of cases for cataract care. ITCs seem to perform surgeries more frequently per care pathway, but conduct a lower number of health care activities per surgical claim. Total average costs are lower in ITCs compared with GHs, but when adjusted for case mix, the differences in costs are lower. The findings with the adjusted quality differences suggest that ITCs outperform GHs on patient satisfaction, but patients’ outcomes are similar. Conclusion This finding supports the postulation—based on the focus factory theory—that ITCs can provide more value for cataract care than GHs.

This perspective argues that for-profit hospitals will be heavily affected by epidemic crises, including the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Policy-makers should be aware that for-profit hospitals in particular are likely to face financial distress. The suspension of all non-urgent elective surgery and the relegation of market-based mechanisms that determines the allocation and compensation of care puts the financial state of these hospitals at serious risk. We identify three organisational factors that determine which hospitals might be most affected (ie, care-portfolio, size and whether it is private equity [PE]-owned). In addition, we analyse contextual factors that could explain the impact of financial distress among for-profit hospitals on the wider healthcare system.