Reimbursement Decisions for Medical Services in Austria: An Analysis of Influencing Factors for the Hospital Individual Services Catalogue

IntroductionThis study aims to (i) describe the (evidence-based) reimbursement process of hospital individual services, (ii) evaluate the accordance between evidence-based recommendations and reimbursement decision of individual services and (iii) elaborate potential aspects that play a role in the decision-making process in Austria.MethodsThe reimbursement process is described based on selected relevant sources such as official documents. Evidence-based recommendations and subsequent reimbursement decisions for the annual maintenance of the hospital individual service catalogue in Austria between 2008 and 2020 were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, encompassing descriptive statistics and a focus group with Austrian decisionmakers.ResultsOne hundred and eighteen evidence-based recommendations were analyzed. There were 93 (78.8%) negative and 25 (21.2%) positive evidence-based recommendations. In total, 107 out of 118 evidence-based recommendations (90.1%) did not lead to a deviating reimbursement decision. We identified six aspects that may have played a role in the decision-making process for the annual maintenance of the hospital individual service catalogue, with clinical evidence being the most notable. Further aspects included quality assurance/organizational aspects (i.e., structural quality assurance), costs (if comparable to already existing medical services, not: cost-effectiveness), procedural aspects (e.g., if certain criteria for adoption have not been met formally through the proposals), "other countries” (i.e., taking into account how other countries decided) and situational aspects (such as the COVID-19 pandemic).ConclusionsThere is good accordance between evidence-based recommendations and reimbursement decisions regarding hospital individual services in Austria. Beyond clinical evidence, organizational aspects seem to be considered often with regard to quality assurance but costs do not appear to play a major role. The Austrian system has mechanisms in place that can restrict widespread adoption of novel hospital individual services with uncertain clinical benefits. Future studies could investigate how well these mechanisms work and how they compare to other health systems in Europe.

A workplace organisational intervention to improve hospital nurses' and physicians' mental health: study protocol for the Magnet4Europe wait list cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing burden of mental distress reported by healthcare professionals is a matter of serious concern and there is a growing recognition of the role of the workplace in creating this problem. Magnet hospitals, a model shown to attract and retain staff in US research, creates positive work environments that aim to support the well-being of healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Magnet4Europe is a cluster randomised controlled trial, with wait list controls, designed to evaluate the effects of organisational redesign, based on the Magnet model, on nurses' and physicians' well-being in general acute care hospitals, using a multicomponent implementation strategy. The study will be conducted in more than 60 general acute care hospitals in Belgium, England, Germany, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. The primary outcome is burnout among nurses and physicians, assessed in longitudinal surveys of nurses and physicians at participating hospitals. Additional data will be collected from them on perceived work environments, patient safety and patient quality of care and will be triangulated with data from medical records, including case mix-adjusted in-hospital mortality. The process of implementation will be evaluated using qualitative data from focus group and key informant interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven, Belgium; additionally, ethics approval is obtained in all other participating countries either through a central or decentral authority. Findings will be disseminated at conferences, through peer-reviewed manuscripts and via social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10196901.

Health care patterns and policies in 18 European countries during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has developed into an unprecedented global challenge. Differences between countries in testing strategies, hospitalization protocols as well as ensuring and managing ICU capacities can illustrate initial responses to a major health system shock, and steer future preparedness activities. METHODS: Publicly available daily data for 18 European countries were retrieved manually from official sources and documented in an Excel table (March-July 2020). The ratio of tests to cases, the share of hospitalizations out of all cases and the share of ICU admissions out of all hospitalizations were computed using 7-day rolling averages per 100 000 population. Information on country policies was collected from the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Information on health care capacities, expenditure and utilization was extracted from the Eurostat health database. RESULTS: There was substantial variation across countries for all studied variables. In all countries, the ratio of tests to cases increased over time, albeit to varying degrees, while the shares of hospitalizations and ICU admissions stabilized, reflecting the evolution of testing strategies and the adaptation of COVID-19 health care delivery pathways, respectively. Health care patterns for COVID-19 at the outset of the pandemic did not necessarily follow the usual health service delivery pattern of each health system. CONCLUSIONS: This study enables a general understanding of how the early evolution of the pandemic influenced and was influenced by country responses and clearly demonstrates the immense potential for cross-country learning.

Drawing light from the pandemic: Rethinking strategies for health policy and beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a catastrophe. It was also preventable. The potential impacts of a novel pathogen were foreseen and for decades scientists and commentators around the world warned of the threat. Most governments and global institutions failed to heed the warnings or to pay enough attention to risks emerging at the interface of human, animal, and environmental health. We were not ready for COVID-19, and people, economies, and governments around the world have suffered as a result. We must learn from these experiences now and implement transformational changes so that we can prevent future crises, and if and when emergencies do emerge, we can respond in more timely, robust and equitable ways, and minimize immediate and longer-term impacts. In 2020-21 the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development assessed the challenges posed by COVID-19 in the WHO European region and the lessons from the response. The Commissioners have addressed health in its entirety, analyzing the interactions between health and sustainable development and considering how other policy priorities can contribute to achieving both. The Commission's final report makes a series of policy recommendations that are evidence-informed and above all actionable. Adopting them would achieve seven key objectives and help build truly sustainable health systems and fairer societies.

A country-level analysis comparing hospital capacity and utilisation during the first COVID-19 wave across Europe.

BACKGROUND: The exponential increase in SARS-CoV-2 infections during the first wave of the pandemic created an extraordinary overload and demand on hospitals, especially intensive care units (ICUs), across Europe. European countries have implemented different measures to address the surge ICU capacity, but little is known about the extent. The aim of this paper is to compare the rates of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute and ICU care and the levels of national surge capacity for intensive care beds across 16 European countries and Lombardy region during the first wave of the pandemic (28 February to 31 July). METHODS: For this country level analysis, we used data on SARS-CoV-2 cases, current and/or cumulative hospitalised COVID-19 patients and current and/or cumulative COVID-19 patients in ICU care. To analyse whether capacities were exceeded, we also retrieved information on the numbers of hospital beds, and on (surge) capacity of ICU beds during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM). Treatment days and mean length of hospital stay were calculated to assess hospital utilisation. RESULTS: Hospital and ICU capacity varied widely across countries. Our results show that utilisation of acute care bed capacity by patients with COVID-19 did not exceed 38.3% in any studied country. However, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Lombardy would not have been able to treat all patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care during the first wave without an ICU surge capacity. Indicators of hospital utilisation were not consistently related to the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The mean number of hospital days associated with one SARS-CoV-2 case ranged from 1.3 (Norway) to 11.8 (France). CONCLUSION: In many countries, the increase in ICU capacity was important to accommodate the high demand for intensive care during the first COVID-19 wave.

6-month mortality and readmissions of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A nationwide cohort study of 8,679 patients in Germany.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 frequently necessitates in-patient treatment and in-patient mortality is high. Less is known about the long-term outcomes in terms of mortality and readmissions following in-patient treatment. AIM: The aim of this paper is to provide a detailed account of hospitalized COVID-19 patients up to 180 days after their initial hospital admission. METHODS: An observational study with claims data from the German Local Health Care Funds of adult patients hospitalized in Germany between February 1 and April 30, 2020, with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and a related principal diagnosis, for whom 6-month all-cause mortality and readmission rates for 180 days after admission or until death were available. A multivariable logistic regression model identified independent risk factors for 180-day all-cause mortality in this cohort. RESULTS: Of the 8,679 patients with a median age of 72 years, 2,161 (24.9%) died during the index hospitalization. The 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 23.9% (2,073/8,679), the 90-day rate was 27.9% (2,425/8,679), and the 180-day rate, 29.6% (2,566/8,679). The latter was 52.3% (1,472/2,817) for patients aged ≥80 years 23.6% (1,621/6,865) if not ventilated during index hospitalization, but 53.0% in case of those ventilated invasively (853/1,608). Risk factors for the 180-day all-cause mortality included coagulopathy, BMI ≥ 40, and age, while the female sex was a protective factor beyond a fewer prevalence of comorbidities. Of the 6,235 patients discharged alive, 1,668 were readmitted a total of 2,551 times within 180 days, resulting in an overall readmission rate of 26.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The 180-day follow-up data of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in a nationwide cohort representing almost one-third of the German population show significant long-term, all-cause mortality and readmission rates, especially among patients with coagulopathy, whereas women have a profoundly better and long-lasting clinical outcome compared to men.

Different spreading dynamics throughout Germany during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: a time series study based on national surveillance data.

BACKGROUND: The second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic led to substantial differences in incidence rates across Germany. METHODS: Assumption-free k-nearest neighbour clustering from the principal component analysis of weekly incidence rates of German counties groups similar spreading behaviour. Different spreading dynamics was analysed by the derivative plots of the temporal evolution of tuples [x(t),x'(t)] of weekly incidence rates and their derivatives. The effectiveness of the different shutdown measures in Germany during the second wave is assessed by the difference of weekly incidences before and after the respective time periods. FINDINGS: The implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions of different extents resulted in four distinct time periods of complex, spatially diverse, and age-related spreading patterns during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Clustering gave three regions of coincident spreading characteristics. October 2020 showed a nationwide exponential growth of weekly incidence rates with a doubling time of 10 days. A partial shutdown during November 2020 decreased the overall infection rates by 20-40% with a plateau-like behaviour in northern and southwestern Germany. The eastern parts exhibited a further near-linear growth by 30-80%. Allover the incidence rates among people above 60 years still increased by 15-35% during partial shutdown measures. Only an extended shutdown led to a substantial decrease in incidence rates. These measures decreased the numbers among all age groups and in all regions by 15-45%. This decline until January 2021 was about -1•25 times the October 2020 growth rates with a strong correlation of -0•96. INTERPRETATION: Three regional groups with different dynamics and different degrees of effectiveness of the applied measures were identified. The partial shutdown was moderately effective and at most stopped the exponential growth, but the spread remained partly plateau-like and regionally continued to grow in a nearly linear fashion. Only the extended shutdown reversed the linear growth. FUNDING: Institutional support and physical resources were provided by the University Witten/ Herdecke and Kliniken der Stadt Köln, German ministry of education and research 'Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin' (NUM), egePan Unimed (01KX2021).

"Top-Three" health reforms in 31 high-income countries in 2018 and 2019: an expert informed overview.

BACKGROUND: High-income countries continuously reform their healthcare systems. Often, similar reforms are introduced concomitantly across countries. Although national policymakers would benefit from considering reform experiences abroad, exchange is limited. This paper provides an overview of health reform trends in 31 high-income countries in 2018 and 2019, i.e., before Covid-19. METHODS: Information was collected from national experts from the Health Systems and Policy Monitor network. Experts were asked to report on the three "top" national health reforms 2018 and 2019. In 2019, they provided an update of 2018 reforms. Reforms were assigned to one of 11 clusters and identified as one of seven different reform types. RESULTS: 81 reforms were reported in 28 countries in 2018. 44/81 went to four clusters: 'insurance coverage & resource generation', 'governance', 'healthcare purchasing & payment', and 'organisation of hospital care'. In 2019, 86 reforms in 30 countries were reported. 48/86 fell under 'organisation of primary & ambulatory care', 'governance', 'care coordination & specialised care', and 'organisation of hospital care'. Most 2018 reforms were reported ongoing in 2019; 27 implemented; seven abandoned. Health agency-led reforms were implemented most frequently, followed by central government-legislated reforms. CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers can leverage international experience of distinct reform approaches addressing similar challenges and similar approaches to address distinct problems. Such knowledge may help inspire or support future successful health reform processes.

Case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of 10 021 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 920 German hospitals: an observational study.

Background Nationwide, unbiased, and unselected data of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 are scarce. Our aim was to provide a detailed account of case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Germany, where the health-care system has not been overwhelmed by the pandemic. METHODS: In this observational study, adult patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, who were admitted to hospital in Germany between Feb 26 and April 19, 2020, and for whom a complete hospital course was available (ie, the patient was discharged or died in hospital) were included in the study cohort. Claims data from the German Local Health Care Funds were analysed. The data set included detailed information on patient characteristics, duration of hospital stay, type and duration of ventilation, and survival status. Patients with adjacent completed hospital stays were grouped into one case. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had received any form of mechanical ventilation. To account for comorbidities, we used the Charlson comorbidity index. FINDINGS: Of 10 021 hospitalised patients being treated in 920 different hospitals, 1727 (17%) received mechanical ventilation (of whom 422 [24%] were aged 18-59 years, 382 [22%] were aged 60-69 years, 535 [31%] were aged 70-79 years, and 388 [23%] were aged ≥80 years). The median age was 72 years (IQR 57-82). Men and women were equally represented in the non-ventilated group, whereas twice as many men than women were in the ventilated group. The likelihood of being ventilated was 12% for women (580 of 4822) and 22% for men (1147 of 5199). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (5575 [56%] of 10 021), diabetes (2791 [28%]), cardiac arrhythmia (2699 [27%]), renal failure (2287 [23%]), heart failure (1963 [20%]), and chronic pulmonary disease (1358 [14%]). Dialysis was required in 599 (6%) of all patients and in 469 (27%) of 1727 ventilated patients. The Charlson comorbidity index was 0 for 3237 (39%) of 8294 patients without ventilation, but only 374 (22%) of 1727 ventilated patients. The mean duration of ventilation was 13·5 days (SD 12·1). In-hospital mortality was 22% overall (2229 of 10 021), with wide variation between patients without ventilation (1323 [16%] of 8294) and with ventilation (906 [53%] of 1727; 65 [45%] of 145 for non-invasive ventilation only, 70 [50%] of 141 for non-invasive ventilation failure, and 696 [53%] of 1318 for invasive mechanical ventilation). In-hospital mortality in ventilated patients requiring dialysis was 73% (342 of 469). In-hospital mortality for patients with ventilation by age ranged from 28% (117 of 422) in patients aged 18-59 years to 72% (280 of 388) in patients aged 80 years or older. INTERPRETATION: In the German health-care system, in which hospital capacities have not been overwhelmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality has been high for patients receiving mechanical ventilation, particularly for patients aged 80 years or older and those requiring dialysis, and has been considerably lower for patients younger than 60 years. FUNDING: None.