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

New technologies may displace existing, higher‐value care under a fixed budget. Countries aim to curtail adoption of low‐value technologies, for example, by installing cost‐effectiveness thresholds. Our objective is to estimate the opportunity cost of hospital care to identify a threshold value for the Netherlands. To this aim, we combine claims data, mortality data and quality of life questionnaires from 2012 to 2014 for 11,000 patient groups to obtain quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY) outcomes and spending. Using a fixed effects translog model, we estimate that a 1% increase in hospital spending on average increases QALY outcomes by 0.2%. This implies a threshold of €73,600 per QALY, with 95% confidence intervals ranging from €53,000 to €94,000 per QALY. The results stipulate that new technologies with incremental cost effectiveness ratios exceeding the Dutch upper reference value of €80,000 may indeed displace more valuable care.

Background: A lack of knowledge exists on real world hospital strategies that seek to improve quality, while reducing or containing costs. The aim of this study is to identify hospitals that have implemented such strategies and determine factors influencing the implementation. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EconLit for case studies on hospital-wide strategies aiming to increase quality and reduce costs. Additionally, grey literature databases, Google and selected websites were searched. We used inductive coding to identify factors relating to implementation of the strategies. Results: The literature search identified 4198 papers, of which our included 17 papers describe 19 case studies from five countries, mostly from the US. To accomplish their goals, hospitals use different management strategies, such as continuous quality improvement, clinical pathways, Lean, Six Sigma and value-based healthcare. Reported effects on both quality and costs are predominantly positive. Factors identified to be relevant for implementation were categorized in eleven themes: 1) strategy, 2) leadership, 3) engagement, 4) reorganization, 5) finances, 6) data and information technology (IT), 7) projects, 8) support, 9) skill development, 10) culture, and 11) communication. Recurring barriers for implementation are a lack of physician engagement, insufficient financial support, and poor data collection. Conclusion: Hospital strategies that explicitly aim to provide high quality care at low costs may be a promising option to bend the cost curve while improving quality. We found a limited amount of studies, and varying contexts across case studies. This underlines the importance of integrated evaluation research. When implementing a quality enhancing, cost reducing strategy, we recommend considering eleven conditions for successful implementation that we were able to derive from the literature.

No abstract