Health System Challenges in Organizing Quality Diabetes Care for Urban Poor in South India

Background

Weak health systems in low- and middle-income countries are recognized as the major constraint in responding to the rising burden of chronic conditions. Despite recognition by global actors for the need for research on health systems, little attention has been given to the role played by local health systems. We aim to analyze a mixed local health system to identify the main challenges in delivering quality care for diabetes mellitus type 2.

Methods

We used the health system dynamics framework to analyze a health system in KG Halli, a poor urban neighborhood in South India. We conducted semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers located in and around the neighborhood who provide care to diabetes patients: three specialist and 13 non-specialist doctors, two pharmacists, and one laboratory technician. Observations at the health facilities were recorded in a field diary. Data were analyzed through thematic analysis.

Result

There is a lack of functional referral systems and a considerable overlap in provision of outpatient care for diabetes across the different levels of healthcare services in KG Halli. Inadequate use of patients’ medical records and lack of standard treatment protocols affect clinical decision-making. The poor regulation of the private sector, poor systemic coordination across healthcare providers and healthcare delivery platforms, widespread practice of bribery and absence of formal grievance redress platforms affect effective leadership and governance. There appears to be a trust deficit among patients and healthcare providers. The private sector, with a majority of healthcare providers lacking adequate training, operates to maximize profit, and healthcare for the poor is at best seen as charity.

Conclusions

Systemic impediments in local health systems hinder the delivery of quality diabetes care to the urban poor. There is an urgent need to address these weaknesses in order to improve care for diabetes and other chronic conditions.     

The Differences in Health Care Utilization between Medical Aid and Health Insurance: A Longitudinal Study Using Propensity Score Matching

Study Objectives

Health care utilization has progressively increased, especially among Medical Aid beneficiaries in South Korea. The Medical Aid classifies beneficiaries into two categories, type 1 and 2, on the basis of being incapable (those under 18 or over 65 years of age, or disabled) or capable of working, respectively. Medical Aid has a high possibility for health care utilization due to high coverage level. In South Korea, the national health insurance (NHI) achieved very short time to establish coverage for the entire Korean population. However there there remaine a number of problems to be solved. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the differences in health care utilization between Medical Aid beneficiaries and Health Insurance beneficiaries.

Methods & Design

Data were collected from the Korean Welfare Panel Study from 2008 to 2012 using propensity score matching. Of the 2,316 research subjects, 579 had Medical Aid and 1,737 had health insurance. We also analyzed three dependent variables: days spent in the hospital, number of outpatient visits, and hospitalizations per year. Analysis of variance and longitudinal data analysis were used.

Results

The number of outpatient visits was 1.431 times higher (p<0.0001) in Medical Aid beneficiaries, the number of hospitalizations per year was 1.604 times higher (p<0.0001) in Medical Aid beneficiaries, and the number of days spent in the hospital per year was 1.282 times higher (p<0.268) for Medical Aid beneficiaries than in individuals with Health Insurance. Medical Aid patients had a 0.874 times lower frequency of having an unmet needs due to economic barrier (95% confidence interval: 0.662-1.156).

Conclusions

Health insurance coverage has an impact on health care utilization. More health care utilization among Medical Aid beneficiaries appears to have a high possibility of a moral hazard risk under the Health Insurance program. Therefore, the moral hazard for Medical Aid beneficiaries should be avoided.     

总额预付制下医保费用管理措施对医疗服务行为影响

目的 了解医院在总额预付制下所采取的费用管理措施以及这些措施对医生处方行为与患者诊疗结果的具体影响。方法 采用问卷调研的方法进行实证研究,并结合专家访谈的方法进行论证讨论。结果 研究发现,总额预付制下,目前医院医保费用管理措施在控制费用的同时对临床服务质量与患者满意度产生了一些意想不到的影响。结论 总额控费带来的相关问题应引起关注,建议可从保证医疗服务质量、优化医疗费用结构和控费方法精细化三方面对控费进行完善。     

城乡医保一体化管理对临床医生工作影响的思考

以医院医保新农合部门管理职工医保、居民医保、新农合工作中遇到的困难为切入点,充分认识城乡医保一体化管理的必要性及迫切性。强调从体制机制上营造宽松条件,避免医务人员在研究不同医保、新农合政策上花费更多的时间,让医生们能有更多的精力致力于临床医学实践和科学研究,从而实现真正意义上的高质量、高效率地满足全民医保需要,从根本上提高全民的医疗保障水平。     

Organizing the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST): National Institutes of Health, Health Care Financing Administration, and industry funding

The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) is a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) as prevention for stroke in patients with symptomatic stenosis greater than or equal to 50%. CREST is sponsored by the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), with additional support by a device manufacturer, and will provide data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for evaluation of a stent device. Because of budget constraints for CREST, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) reimbursement for hospital costs incurred by CREST patients will be essential. The involvement of academic scientists, industry, and three separate government agencies (NIH, FDA, HCFA) has presented many challenges in conducting the trial. A review of the pathways followed to meet these challenges may be helpful to others seeking to facilitate sharing of the costs and burdens of conducting innovative clinical research.     

No-Fault Malpractice Insurance: Proximate Cause and the Quality of Medical Care

No-fault medical malpractice insurance has been proposed as an alternative to the present tort liability approach. Statistical examination of the concept of proximate cause reveals not only that the question of acceptable care, and therefore of fault, is unavoidable in identifying patients deserving compensation, but also that specifying fault in an individual case is scientifically untenable. A simple formula for a Coefficient of Causality clarifies the question of proximate cause in existing trial practices and suggests that many of the threats associated with malpractice suits arise from the structure of the tort-insurance system rather than from professional responsibility for medical injury. The concepts could provide the basis for a revised claims and compensation procedure.