This article reviews efforts in the United States and several other member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to encourage patients, through cost sharing, to use goods such as medications, services, and providers that offer better value than other options--an approach known as value-based cost sharing. Among the countries we reviewed, we found that value-based approaches were most commonly applied to drug cost sharing. A few countries, including the United States, employed financial incentives, such as lower copayments, to encourage use of preferred providers or preventive services. Evidence suggests that these efforts can increase patients' use of high-value services--although they may also be associated with high administrative costs and could exacerbate health inequalities among various groups. With careful design, implementation, and evaluation, value-based cost sharing can be an important tool for aligning patient and provider incentives to pursue high-value care.

Background While single indicators measure a specific aspect of quality (e.g. timely support during labour), users of these indicators such as patients, providers and policy-makers are typically interested in some broader construct (e.g. quality of maternity care) whose measurement requires a set of indicators. However, guidance on desirable properties of indicator sets is lacking. Based on the premise that a set of valid indicators does not guarantee a valid set of indicators, the aim of this review is twofold: First, we introduce content validity as a desirable property of indicator sets and review the extent to which studies in the peer-reviewed health care quality literature address this criterion. Second, to obtain a complete inventory of criteria, we examine what additional criteria of quality indicator sets were used so far. Methods : We searched the databases Web of Science, Medline, Cinahl and PsycInfo from inception to May 2021 and the reference lists of included studies. English- or German-language, peer-reviewed studies concerned with desirable characteristics of quality indicator sets were included. Applying qualitative content analysis, two authors independently coded the articles using a structured coding scheme and discussed conflicting codes until consensus was reached. Results Of 366 studies screened, 62 were included in the review. 85% (53/62) of studies addressed at least one of the component criteria of content validity (content coverage, proportional representation, contamination) and 15% (9/62) addressed all component criteria. Studies used various content domains to structure the targeted construct (e.g., quality dimensions, elements of the care pathway, policy priorities), providing a framework to assess content validity. The review revealed four additional substantive criteria for indicator sets: cost of measurement (21% [13/62] of the included studies), prioritization of “essential” indicators (21% [13/62]), avoidance of redundancy (13% [8/62]) and size of the set (15% [9/62]). Additionally, four procedural criteria were identified: stakeholder involvement (69% [43/62]), using a conceptual framework (44% [27/62]), defining the purpose of measurement (26% [16/62]) and transparency of the development process (8% [5/62]). Conclusion The concept of content validity and its component criteria help assessing whether conclusions based on a set of indicators are valid conclusions about the targeted construct. To develop a valid indicator set, careful definition of the targeted construct including its (sub-)domains is paramount. Developers of quality indicators should specify the purpose of measurement and consider trade-offs with other criteria for indicator sets whose application may reduce content validity (e.g. costs of measurement) in light thereof.

ZusammenfassungMehr als die Hälfte der deutschen Bevölkerung hat Schwierigkeiten im Umgang mit Gesundheitsinformationen. Es ist eine wichtige Aufgabe der Versorgungsforschung zu untersuchen, wie sich die Professionen und Organisationen des Gesundheitssystems dieser Herausforderung stellen können. Das DNVF Memorandums Gesundheitskompetenz (Teil 1) nimmt Begriffsbestimmungen der individuellen und organisationalen Gesundheitskompetenz vor, präsentiert den nationalen und internationalen Forschungsstand und stellt ethische Aspekte der versorgungsbezogenen Gesundheitskompetenzforschung dar. Weiterhin wird die Relevanz der Gesundheitskompetenzforschung in verschiedenen Lebensphasen, bei unterschiedlichen Personengruppen sowie in verschiedenen Kontexten der Gesundheits- und Krankenversorgung erarbeitet. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden zentrale Forschungsgegenstände und zukünftige Forschungsdesiderata abgeleitet.

Worldwide, countries face the challenge of securing funds for health promotion. To address this issue, some governments have established health promotion foundations, which are statutory bodies with long-term and recurrent public resources. This article draws on experiences from Austria, Australia, Germany, Hungary and Switzerland to illustrate four lessons learned from the foundation model to secure funding for health promotion. These lessons are concerned with: (i) the broad spectrum of potential revenue sources for health promotion foundations within national contexts; (ii) legislative anchoring of foundation revenues as a base for financial sustainability; (iii) co-financing as a means to increase funds and shared commitment for health promotion; (iv) complementarity of foundations to existing funding. Synthesizing the lessons, we discuss health promotion foundations in relation to wider concerns for investment in health based on the values of sustainability, solidarity and stewardship. We recommend policy-makers and researchers take notice of health promotion foundations as an alternative model for securing funds for health promotion, and appreciate their potential for integrating inter-sectoral revenue collection and inter-sectoral funding strategies. However, health promotion foundations are not a magic bullet. They also pose challenges to coordination and public sector stewardship. Therefore, health promotion foundations will need to act in concert with other governance instruments as part of a wider societal agenda for investment in health.

No abstract