Building blocks were delivered for two quality report cards for geriatric care and will be used when quality report cards are built in The Netherlands. For the U.S. context, this study shows that current national report cards for geriatric care should be supplemented with quality-of-life data.

Background: Recent attempts of active disinvestment (i.e. withdrawal of reimbursement by means of a policy decision) of reimbursed healthcare interventions in the Netherlands have differed in their outcome: some were successful, with interventions actually being disinvested, while others were terminated at some point, implying continuation of reimbursement. This study aimed to obtain insight into recent active disinvestment processes, and to explore what aspects affect their outcome.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted from January to December 2018 with stakeholders (e.g. patients, policymakers, physicians) who were involved in the policy process of five cases for which the full or partial withdrawal of reimbursement was considered in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2017: benzodiazepines, medication for Fabry disease, quit smoking programme, psychoanalytic therapy and maternity care assistance. These cases covered both interventions that were eventually disinvested and interventions for which reimbursement was maintained after consideration. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, double coded and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: The 37 interviews showed that support for disinvestment from stakeholders, especially from healthcare providers and policymakers, strongly affected the outcome of the disinvestment process. Furthermore, the institutional role of stakeholders as legitimized by the Dutch health insurance system, their financial interests in maintaining or discontinuing reimbursement, and the possibility to relieve the consequences of disinvestment for current patients affected the outcome of the disinvestment process as well. No evidence was found of a consistent role of the formal Dutch package criteria (i.e. effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, necessity and feasibility) in active disinvestment processes.Conclusions: Contextual factors as well as the possibility to relieve the consequences of disinvestment for current patients are important determinants of the outcome of active disinvestment processes. These results provide insight into active disinvestment processes and their determinants, and provide guidance to policymakers for a potentially more successful approach for future active disinvestment processes.

No abstract

Background: Active patient involvement in treatment decisions is seen as a feature of patient-centred care that will ultimately lead to better healthcare services and patient outcomes. Although many factors have been identified that influence patient involvement in treatment decisions, little is known about the different views that patients have on which factors are most important.Objective: This study explores the views of patients with a chronic condition on factors influencing their involvement in treatment decisions.Design: Q-methodology was used to study the views of patients. Respondents were asked to rank a set of 42 statements from the least important to the most important for active patient involvement in treatment decision-making. The set of 42 statements was developed based on a literature search and a pilot in which two external researchers, 15 patients and four healthcare professionals participated. A total of 136 patients with one of three major chronic conditions were included: diabetes types 1 and 2, respiratory disease (i.e., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma) and cancer (i.e., breast cancer and prostate cancer). Data were collected in a face-to-face interview setting in the Netherlands.Results: Four distinct views on the factors influencing active patient involvement were identified among patients with a chronic condition. (1) Enabled involvement: the extent to which patients are facilitated and empowered to participate will lead to patient involvement. (2) Relationship-driven involvement: the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals drives patient involvement. (3) Disease impact-driven involvement: the severity of disease drives patient involvement. (4) Cognition-driven involvement: knowledge and information drive patient involvement. Discussion and Conclusion:From the patients' perspective, this study shows that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to involving patients more actively in their healthcare

No abstract