Healthcare Providers' Knowledge of Value-Based Care in Germany: An Adapted, Mixed-Methods Approach.

BACKGROUND: Value-Based Care (VBC) is being discussed to provide better outcomes to patients, with an aim to reimburse healthcare providers (HCPs) based on the quality of care they deliver. Little is known about German HCPs' knowledge of VBC. This study aims to investigate the knowledge of HCPs of VBC and to identify potential needs for further education toward implementation of VBC in Germany. METHODS: For evidence generation, we performed a literature search and conducted an online survey among HCPs at 89 hospitals across Germany. The questionnaire was based on published evidence and co-developed with an expert panel using a mixed methods approach. RESULTS: We found HCPs to believe that VBC is more applicable in surgery than internal medicine and that well-defined cycles of care are essential for its application. HCPs believe that VBC can reduce health care costs significantly. However, they also assume that implementing VBC will be challenging. CONCLUSIONS: The concept in general is well perceived, however, HCPs do not want to participate in any financial risk sharing. Installing an authority/independent agency that measures achieved value, digital transformation, and that improves the transition between the inpatient and the outpatient sectors are top interests of HCPs.

Perspective of German medical faculties on digitization in the healthcare sector and its influence on the curriculum.

Background: The German healthcare sector is in the process of being disrupted by digitization. Universities are asked to reflect on the consequences and develop strategies to prepare their medical students for a digitalized health care sector. The current state of research does not systematically record the associated activities of individual medical faculties in Germany. Objective: This study was designed to survey the status-quo of how German medical faculties view the digitization progress and to what extend digital capability building is already integrated into the curricula. Methods: A questionnaire with three focus areas was developed: Firstly, the general view of the medical faculties on digitization; secondly, concrete measures to prepare students for digital change and thirdly, the overarching organizational and regulatory conditions. The data was collected through short, questionnaire-based telephone interviews among those responsible for the curriculum at their faculty. The datasets collected were anonymized and statistically evaluated. Results: 30 interviews were conducted. The majority of faculty representatives agreed that digitization will change the role of physicians (87% agreement). Changes caused by individual digitization trends were however viewed to be less likely, e.g., whether medical expertise will become less important due to digital assistance systems (20% agreement), whether physician positions will be replaced by robots and algorithms (7% agreement), or whether hierarchies in hospitals will flatten (13% agreement). Digitization was seen to be of major importance for medical studies (93% agreement). Associated content should be given a higher priority in the curriculum (87% agreement). Two-thirds of faculty representatives believed that overarching institutions such as politics and medical associations ought to have more concrete plans for implementing the digital transformation and that innovations should be implemented in practice faster. Conclusion: While most faculty representatives attach great importance to the digitization of the health care system for university education, various questions about structural teaching measures to prepare students for the digital change show that there is no uniform education of medical students for a digitized health care system. We were also able to show that most faculty representatives are dissatisfied with the regulatory and organizational conditions of digitization in the medical sector.