IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v340y2024ics0277953623007700.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder perspectives on payment reform in maternity care in the Netherlands: A Q-methodology study

Author

Listed:
  • Scheefhals, Zoë T.M.
  • de Vries, Eline F.
  • Struijs, Jeroen N.
  • Numans, Mattijs E.
  • van Exel, Job

Abstract

Based on theoretical notions, there is consensus that alternative payment models to the common fee-for-service model have the potential to improve healthcare quality through increased collaboration and reduced under- and overuse. This is particularly relevant for maternity care in the Netherlands because perinatal mortality rates are relatively high in comparison to other Western countries. Therefore, an experiment with bundled payments for maternity care was initiated in 2017. However, the uptake of this alternative payment model remains low, as also seen in other countries, and fee-for-service models prevail. A deeper understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives on payment reform in maternity care is necessary to inform policy makers about the obstacles to implementing alternative payment models and potential ways forward. We conducted a Q-methodology study to explore perspectives of stakeholders (postpartum care managers, midwives, gynecologists, managers, health insurers) in maternity care in the Netherlands on payment reform. Participants were asked to rank a set of statements relevant to payment reform in maternity care and explain their ranking during an interview. Factor analysis was used to identify patterns in the rankings of statements. We identified three distinct perspectives on payment reform in maternity care. One general perspective, broadly supported within the sector, focusing mainly on outcomes, and two complementary perspectives, one focusing more on equality and one focusing more on collaboration. This study shows there is consensus among stakeholders in maternity care in the Netherlands that payment reform is required. However, stakeholders have different views on the purpose and desired design of the payment reform and set different conditions. Working towards payment reform in co-creation with all involved parties may improve the general attitude towards payment reform, may enhance the level of trust among stakeholders, and may contribute to a higher uptake in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Scheefhals, Zoë T.M. & de Vries, Eline F. & Struijs, Jeroen N. & Numans, Mattijs E. & van Exel, Job, 2024. "Stakeholder perspectives on payment reform in maternity care in the Netherlands: A Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:340:y:2024:i:c:s0277953623007700
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953623007700
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116413?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Rudoler & Raisa Deber & Janet Barnsley & Richard H. Glazier & Adrian Rohit Dass & Audrey Laporte, 2015. "Paying for Primary Care: The Factors Associated with Physician Self‐selection into Payment Models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1229-1242, September.
    2. Mason, Helen & van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Brouwer, Werner & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 205-213.
    3. de Vries, Eline F. & Drewes, Hanneke W. & Struijs, Jeroen N. & Heijink, Richard & Baan, Caroline A., 2019. "Barriers to payment reform: Experiences from nine Dutch population health management sites," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(11), pages 1100-1107.
    4. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    5. Rotteveel, A.H. & Reckers-Droog, V.T. & Lambooij, M.S. & de Wit, G.A. & van Exel, N.J.A., 2021. "Societal views in the Netherlands on active disinvestment of publicly funded healthcare interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    6. Daphne Truijens & Job van Exel, 2019. "Views on deceased organ donation in the Netherlands: A q-methodology study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Rotteveel, Adriënne H. & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & van Exel, Job & de Wit, G. Ardine, 2022. "To what extent do citizens support the disinvestment of healthcare interventions? An exploration of the support for four viewpoints on active disinvestment in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rotteveel, Adriënne H. & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & van Exel, Job & de Wit, G. Ardine, 2022. "To what extent do citizens support the disinvestment of healthcare interventions? An exploration of the support for four viewpoints on active disinvestment in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    2. Rotteveel, A.H. & Reckers-Droog, V.T. & Lambooij, M.S. & de Wit, G.A. & van Exel, N.J.A., 2021. "Societal views in the Netherlands on active disinvestment of publicly funded healthcare interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    3. Reckers-Droog, Vivian & Jansen, Maarten & Bijlmakers, Leon & Baltussen, Rob & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job, 2020. "How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 143-151.
    4. McHugh, Neil & van Exel, Job & Mason, Helen & Godwin, Jon & Collins, Marissa & Donaldson, Cam & Baker, Rachel, 2018. "Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 61-69.
    5. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    6. Helen Mason & Marissa Collins & Neil McHugh & Jon Godwin & Job Van Exel & Cam Donaldson & Rachel Baker, 2018. "Is “end of life” a special case? Connecting Q with survey methods to measure societal support for views on the value of life‐extending treatments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 819-831, May.
    7. Małgorzata Gałązka-Sobotka & Aldona Frączkiewicz-Wronka & Iwona Kowalska-Bobko & Hanna Kelm & Karolina Szymaniec-Mlicka, 2021. "HB-HTA as an implementation problem in Polish health policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-24, September.
    8. Jasmin Kantarevic & Boris Kralj, 2016. "Physician Payment Contracts in the Presence of Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection: The Theory and Its Application in Ontario," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(10), pages 1326-1340, October.
    9. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Jorge Barros-Garcia-Imhof & Andrés Jiménez-Alfonso & Inés Gómez-Acebo & María Fernández-Ortiz & Jéssica Alonso-Molero & Javier Llorca & Alejandro Gonzalez-Castro & Trinidad Dierssen-Sotos, 2022. "Perception of Medical Students on the Need for End-of-Life Care: A Q-Methodology Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Nibene H. Somé & Rose Anne Devlin & Nirav Mehta & Gregory S. Zaric & Sisira Sarma, 2020. "Stirring the pot: Switching from blended fee‐for‐service to blended capitation models of physician remuneration," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1435-1455, November.
    12. Lips, S.R. & Molenaar, J.M. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, T.J., 2020. "Transforming maternity care: obstetric partnerships as a policy instrument for integration," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(11), pages 1245-1253.
    13. Peckham, Allie & Morton-Chang, Frances & Williams, A. Paul & Miller, Fiona A., 2018. "Rebalancing health systems toward community-based care: The role of subsectoral politics," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(11), pages 1260-1265.
    14. Tobias Romeyke & Elisabeth Noehammer & Harald Stummer, 2022. "Incentives for Combining Structure and Process Quality to Improve Outcome in Rheumatic Treatment," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(3), pages 21582440221, September.
    15. Werner Brouwer & Pieter Baal & Job Exel & Matthijs Versteegh, 2019. "When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 175-180, March.
    16. Mason, Helen & van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Brouwer, Werner & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 205-213.
    17. Jana Rogge & Bernhard Kittel, 2016. "Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, June.
    18. Ahlert, Marlies & Breyer, Friedrich & Schwettmann, Lars, 2016. "How you ask is what you get: Framing effects in willingness-to-pay for a QALY," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 40-48.
    19. van Vooren, N.J.E & Steenkamer, B.M. & Baan, C.A. & Drewes, H.W., 2020. "Transforming towards sustainable health and wellbeing systems: Eight guiding principles based on the experiences of nine Dutch Population Health Management initiatives," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 37-43.
    20. Singh, Renu, 2023. "Priming COVID-19's consequences can increase support for investments in public health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:340:y:2024:i:c:s0277953623007700. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.