Policy interventions to improve the accessibility and affordability of Dutch dental care. A scoping review of effective interventions.

Caries and periodontitis remain prevalent in the Netherlands. Given the assumption that increasing the accessibility and affordability of dental care can improve oral health outcomes, policy interventions aimed at improving these aspects may contribute to better oral health. To identify possible solutions, this scoping review firstly identifies policy interventions from around the world that have effectively improved the accessibility or affordability of dental care. Secondly, this review discusses the potential of the policy interventions identified that are applicable to the Dutch healthcare sector specifically. A literature search was performed in four databases. Two reviewers independently screened all potentially relevant titles and abstracts before doing the same for the full texts. Only studies that had quantitatively evaluated the effectiveness of policy interventions aimed at improving the accessibility or affordability of dental care were included. 61 of the 1288 retrieved studies were included. Interventions were grouped into four categories. Capacity interventions (n = 5) mainly focused on task delegation. Coverage interventions (n = 25) involved the expansion of covered dental treatments or the group eligible for coverage. Managed care interventions (n = 20) were frequently implemented in school or community settings. Payment model interventions (n = 11) focused on dental reimbursement rates or capitation. 199 indicators were identified throughout the 61 included studies. Indicators were grouped into three categories: accessibility (n = 137), affordability (n = 21), and oral health status (n = 41). Based on the included studies, increasing managed care interventions for children and adding dental coverage to the basic health insurance plan for adults could improve access to dental care in the Netherlands. Due to possible spillover effects, it is advisable to investigate a combination of these policy interventions. Further research will be necessary for the development of effective policy interventions in practice.

'Give me something meaningful': GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers - an exploratory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a valuable quality improvement strategy, which can contribute to de-implementation of low-value care. In the Netherlands, all health insurers collaboratively provide A&F to general practitioners (GPs), the 'Primary Care Practice Report' (PCPR). Unfortunately, the use of this report by GPs is limited. This study examined the thoughts of GPs on the usability of the PCPR and GPs recommendations for improving the PCPR. METHOD: We used an interpretative qualitative design, with think-aloud tasks to uncover thoughts of GPs on the usability of the PCPR and semistructured interview questions to ask GPs' recommendations for improvement of the PCPR. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed ad verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: We identified two main themes: 'poor usability of the PCPR', and 'minimal motivation to change based on the PCPR'. The GPs found the usability of the PCPR poor due to the feedback not being clinically meaningful, the data not being recent, individual and reliable, the performance comparators offer insufficient guidance to assess clinical performance, the results are not discussed with peers and the definitions and visuals are unclear. The GPs recommended improving these issues. The GPs motivation to change based on the PCPR was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: The GPs evaluated the PCPR as poorly usable and were minimally motivated to change. The PCPR seems developed from the perspective of the reports' commissioners, health insurers, and does not meet known criteria for effective A&F design and user-centred design. Importantly, the GPs did state that well-designed feedback could contribute to their motivation to improve clinical performance.Furthermore, the GPs stated that they receive a multitude of A&F reports, which they hardly use. Thus, we see a need for policy makers to invest in less, but more usable A&F reports.

[Better use of the front-end deductible in the Netherlands; private contributions to expenditure, costs awareness or incentives for quality]. / Het verplicht eigen risico beter benutten.

One of the key items in the upcoming elections for the House of Representatives of the Netherlands is the continuation of the compulsory annual front-end deductible ("own risk") in health insurance. Getting rid of the deductible completely, as proposed by some parties, would create significant budget issues. This article suggests four alternatives. The first option is to abandon the yearly increase to help cover the overall growth in health care spending, and replace it with a maximum level for the deductible. The second is to convert it from a front-end to fixed, but capped co-payment every time care is consumed. The third option is to limit the deductible to out-of-network use of care. The final option is to abolish the deductible completely when a preferred provider is chosen.