ABSTRACT
The French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé, HAS) was created in 2004. The aim of this study was to examine three of its principal responsibilities, namely certification of healthcare facilities, definition of chronic illnesses (ALD, affections de longue durée), and production of clinical practice guidelines. The authors did not assess other HAS responsibilities, such as the role of the drug evaluation and reimbursement committee (Commission de Transparence). Healthcare facility certification cost at least 22.4 million in 2012 and involved 89 HAS personnel and 681 external auditors; medical issues were considered from only a very general and theoretical standpoint, leading the national ombudsman (Cour des Comptes) to qualify them as "blind spots". HAS is required to provide only an overall assessment of each healthcare institution, even though different departments may be of highly variable quality. Chronic illnesses are somewhat vaguely defined, permitting flexible interpretation by health insurers' medical experts. This leads to considerable disparities from one region to another in the number of patients qualifyingfor this status. Finally, practice guidelines must be more firmlly based on the results of the most rigorous and properly referenced scientific studies, and the resultinzg documents must be written more strictly, clearly and briefly, hi conclusion, HAS performance in the three roles we examined is disappointing Certification of healthcare institutions could be replaced by unannounced inspections by the General Welfare Inspectorate, health insurers, or regional health agencies. The definition of chronic illnesses and the production of practice guidelines could be handed over to scientific societies or academies, as illustrated by the case of hypertension.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , Certification , France , Humans , Practice Guidelines as TopicABSTRACT
An audit of the French national health insurance system would be justified by economic considerations alone, but this would risk overlooking the notions of solidarity and freedom to which the French are rightly attached. European comparisons suggest, however, that our system could be made more efficient without undermining public health. The national health insurance system allows each member of the population to receive high-quality medical care. Practitioners have near-total freedom of prescription and practice. Medical care contributes to the ongoing increase in life expectancy, which is currently 73 years and second only to Japan. Healthcare is also a source of a million jobs. Macro-economic spending controls have failed, owing to medical progress and population aging, and also to medical consumerism favored by an unprecedented range of examinations and treatments, the increasing reimbursement of medical care, and the extension of direct payment by the insurer. Many ineffective measures have been implemented, such as tarification according to activity, and hospital certification. Health spending is also increased unnecessarily by bureaucratisation of healthcare spending and the transfer of professionals to posts for which they are not qualified. Some controversial medical prescriptions are not adequately controlled by the health service. Many reforms are based on over-optimistic economic predictions that fail to take related overheads into account. Lobbying by special interests groups undermines reform and the public interest. Too many independent administrative bodies have been created, and many are less efficient than the public structures they replaced. In sum, the French national health insurance system has become less and less efficient over the years.
