Advertisement

Health Care Dynamics

Chapter
  • 738 Downloads

Abstract

Developments in health care are to a considerable extent determined by the immanent dynamics of the health care process. These dynamics make health care a very difficult item to control in any democratic economic order. In order to explain these dynamics, I define health care as a complex and dynamic process of continuous innovation, i.e., of constantly changing new combinations of science, technology, organization, politics, economics, and (medical) culture.

Keywords

Health Care Health Care System Organizational Slack Health Care Process Enrollment Restriction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Chapter 6

  1. 2.
    Gooijer, W. J. de, Siem Tjam, F., and Stott, G.: Hospital and Institutional Care: An Approach to a Generic Delineation, WHO, WHO/EIP/OSD/00.3, Geneva, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    In this respect, Tronto distinguishes between four phases of care: (a) caring about, (b) taking care of, (c) care-giving, and (d) care-receiving. The focus in the diagram is on (c). (Widdershoven, G.: Technology and Care: From Opposition to Integration, in: Gastmans, Chr., (ed.): Between Technology and Humanity: The Impact of Technology on Health Care Ethics, Leuven University Press, 2002, p. 41).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    See, for example, Payer, L.: Medicine and Culture:Varieties of Treatment in the United States, England, West Germany, and France, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Payer, L.: ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Payer, L.: ibid., p. 108.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Payer, L.: ibid., p. 101.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Payer, L.: ibid., p. 33.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Payer, L.: ibid., p. 54. Also, see: Pols, A.: Buiten Proportie: Opschudding over de Siliconen Borstprothese, in: Everdingen, J. J. E. van, (ed.): ibid., pp. 195–203.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Payer, L.: ibid., p. 78.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Payer, L.: ibid., p. 78.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Payer, L.: ibid., p. 121.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Payer, L.: ibid., p. 125.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Mechanic, D.: ibid., p. 38.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Mossialos, E. and Le Grand, J.: Cost Containment in the EU:An Overview, ibid., p. 35.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Malleson refers to research in the city of New York, showing how arbitrarily doctors diagnose the need for a tonsillectomy (Malleson, A.: Need Your Doctor Be So Useless? (Dutch Translation), Het Spectrum, 1974, p. 14).Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Research has shown that the effects of different types of psychotherapy are often rather limited, due to non-specific factors like the relation between the therapist and the client and the large variability in the natural course of disorders (Health Council of the Netherlands: The Future of Our Selves, The Hague, Health Council of the Netherlands, 2002, publication no. 2002/13, p. 49).Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Apart from the examples given, Everdingen, et al. argue that medicine is not free from fashionable trends, giving several examples from gynecology and neurology (Everdingen, J. J. E. van, (ed.): ibid., p. 69).Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Lasch, C.: ibid., pp. 207 and 211. Giving examples of a patient who “abruptly” broke off analysis after the 1,172nd session and a patient who remained in analysis for 11 years, Lasch concludes that psychoanalytic therapies in their classic form cost too much, last too long, and demand too much intellectual sophistication from the patient.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Health Council of the Netherlands: ibid., p. 84.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Kahn, H. and Wiener, A. J.: ibid., pp. 59–65.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Banta, H.: An Approach to the Social Control of Hospital Technologies, WHO/SHS/CC/95.2, SHS Paper number 10, WHO, 1995, p. 1.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Newhouse and Cutler (1996), in: Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg: Technologische Innovatie in de Zorgsector, ibid., pp. 47–48.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    See for this aspect of the developments in health care: Fanu, J. le: The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine, Abacus Books, 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 142.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., chapters 1–4.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 138.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    A known example, in this respect, was Barry Marshall, an Australian doctor who discovered a cure for peptic ulcers (Fanu, J. le: ibid., chapter 12).Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 157.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Freidson, E.: Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970, p. 5. Also see: Boer, J. de: Paradoxen in de Geneeskunde, Erasmus-lezing, Rotterdam, 1985, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., part 1, chapter 1.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Corrected for inflation, during the 20 years following the Second World War, the total dollar amount invested in medical research increased 15-fold (Ludmerer, K. M.: ibid., p. 142).Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 192.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., part 1, chapter 2.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 216.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., part 1, chapter 4.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 219.Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., pp. 237–238.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    Ludmerer, K. M.: ibid., p. xix.Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    Sparrow, M.: ibid., p. viii.Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Health Cast Tactics: A Blueprint for the Future, the Health Cast 2010 Series, 2002, p. 52.Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    Here, the Council expects business process redesign to contribute to improvements (Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg: Technologische Innovatie in de Zorgsector, ibid., chapter 3).Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    Gann, B.: Enabling Patient Access and Expertise, in: Dean, K., (ed.): Connected Health: Essays from Health Innovators, Cisco Systems, undated, p. 9.Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg: Technologische Innovatie in de Zorgsector, ibid., p. 6.Google Scholar
  44. 45.
    Gann, B.: ibid., p. 10–11. The “digital divide” may exclude the poor, the homeless, refugees and ethnic minorities. Figures from the United Kingdom from 2000 confirm that internet users tend to be young, affluent, and employed; 48% are under 35 years old, and only 11% are over 55 years old.Google Scholar
  45. 46.
    See: Beolchi, L., (ed.): Telemedicine Glossary, fifth edition, 2003, Working Document, European Commission, Brussels, September 2003.Google Scholar
  46. 47.
    Health Council of The Netherlands: The Future of Our Selves, ibid.Google Scholar
  47. 48.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 243. The “Age of Optimism” ended around the late 1970s.Google Scholar
  48. 49.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., part 2.Google Scholar
  49. 50.
    Fanu. J. le: ibid., p. 262.Google Scholar
  50. 51.
    With, of course, the vaccine against hepatitis B and the “triple therapy” for the treatment of AIDS being important exceptions Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 249.Google Scholar
  51. 52.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 253.Google Scholar
  52. 53.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 260.Google Scholar
  53. 54.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., part 3.Google Scholar
  54. 55.
    Fanu, J. le: ibid., p. 271.Google Scholar
  55. 56.
    Mitchell refers to the launching of 525,000 new products in Europe over a period of 13 months during the 1990s. Research showed, however, that only 2.2% could be classified as innovative, with 76.7% being, in fact, line extensions (Michell, A.: ibid., p. 44).Google Scholar
  56. 57.
    A few examples are (1) Parker, J. E. S.: The Economics of Innovation: The National and Multinational Enterprise in Technological Change, Longman, 1974; (2) Rogers, E. M. and Shoemaker, F.: Communication of Innovation:. A Cross-Cultural Approach, New York, 1971; (3) Schon, D. A.: Technology and Change: The Impact of Invention and Innovation on American Social and Economic Development, New York, 1967; (4) Baudet, H.: Over Acceptatie van Innovaties, Amsterdam, 1970; (5) Twiss, B.: Managing Technological Innovation, London, 1974.Google Scholar
  57. 58.
    Parker, J. E. S.: ibid., p. 123.Google Scholar
  58. 59.
    McKinlay, J. B.: From ‘Promising Report’ to’ standard Procedure’: Seven Stages in the Career of a Medical Innovation, in: McKinlay, J. B., (ed.): Technology and the Future of Health Care, Milbank Reader 8, the MIT Press, 1982, pp. 233–270. Notes 60–65 are all based on McKinlay.Google Scholar
  59. 63.
    As for these observational studies, several characteristics can be distinguished. Firstly, they may follow from the wish governments have to evaluate the innovation’s effectiveness, after it has received general endorsement. Mostly, these studies are retrospective case reports or follow-up investigations which are limited to selected patients who were treated with help of the innovation. Secondly, interested parties from the foregoing stages (manufacturers, medical professionals, hospitals) are often the ones to initiate and to conduct these observational studies, thus having an interest in positive outcomes. Therefore, the objectivity of these studies can be questioned. Thirdly, these observational studies usually suffer from methodological limitations. The sample size may be inadequate, the study may be limited to specific groups of patients or problems, there may not be an appropriate comparison group, or one may use subjective outcomes only. Fourthly, observational studies seldom add much knowledge concerning the effectiveness of the innovation in relation to the problem it is designed to assist. “In view of these and other limitations it is difficult to determine from most observational reports whether the innovation is actually effective and whether some observed outcome may with certainty be attributed to it,” according to McKinlay (McKinlay, J. B., (ed.): ibid., p. 248). Nevertheless, public support remains strong, with governments and third parties underwriting most of its costs. To question the innovation’s effectiveness or desirability raises hostility towards the one who dares to make the suggestion.Google Scholar
  60. 65.
    In particular, professional journals which show the courage to publish negative RCT results may be attacked by write-in campaigns from parties committed to the innovation, thus creating the impression that the opposition is not as intense as it may seem. Furthermore, disquieting RCT findings may be moderated by “invited experts,” who try to reconcile contradictory findings with their clinical experience. Another method is that parties who have an interest in advancing the innovation’s career constitute a special committee to evaluate the RCT results with the objective of disqualifying the outcomes. In the event that such a committee reviews “data,” they mostly are from the above-mentioned methodologically defective observational studies. According to McKinlay, “the issue of double standards is perhaps most evident during the sixth stage. The many defective observational studies conducted up to this point seldom receive adequate methodological and statistical scrutiny, whereas RCTs are subject to the most stringent criticism, employing standards that are almost never involved during the earlier stages. Questions are raised and motivations challenged that, again, are seldom raised during earlier stages.” (McKinlay, J. B., (ed.): ibid., p. 256). Given all this, “it is reasonable to argue that the success of an innovation has little to do with its intrinsic worth [...] but is dependent on the power of the interest groups that sponsor and maintain it, despite the absence or inadequacy of empirical support” (McKinlay, J. B., (ed.): ibid., p. 257).Google Scholar
  61. 66.
    McKinlay, J. B., (ed.): ibid., p. 258.Google Scholar
  62. 67.
    Steering Committee on Future Health Scenarios: Anticipating and Assessing Health Care Technology, Volume 2, Future Technological Changes, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988, p. 5.Google Scholar
  63. 68.
    Popta, S. van: De Gemende Economische Orde en de Christelijk-Sociale Geachte, Kampen, 1974, p. 5.Google Scholar
  64. 69.
    Jennet, B.: High Technology Medicine: Benefits and Burdens, Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 14.Google Scholar
  65. 70.
    Ludmerer, K. M.: ibid., p. 269.Google Scholar
  66. 71.
    Gooijer, W. J. de: De Planning van Dure Medische Apparatuur in het Europa van 1992, ZM-Magazine, jaargang 5, nummer 11, November 1989, pp. 11–19.Google Scholar
  67. 72.
    Sargentini, A., Marino, F., and Bravar, D.: Medical Technology in Italy, in: Stocking, B., (ed.): ibid., p. 137.Google Scholar
  68. 73.
    Tsouros, A. D.: Medical Technology in Greece, in: Stocking, B., (ed.): ibid., p. 128.Google Scholar
  69. 74.
    Sissouras, A., Karokis, A. and Mossialos, E.: Health Care and Cost Containment in Greece, in: Mossialos, E. and Le Grand, J., (eds.): ibid., p. 387.Google Scholar
  70. 75.
    Held, H.: Medical Technology in the Federal Republic of Germany, in: Stocking, B. (ed.): ibid., p. 118.Google Scholar
  71. 76.
    Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 85, Heft 31/32, 8 August 1988, Seite B-1250.Google Scholar
  72. 77.
    Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 85, Heft 31/32, 8 August 1988, Seite B-1250.Google Scholar
  73. 78.
    Gress, S., Niebuhr, D., Rothgang, H., Wasem, J.: Benefit Decisions in German Social Health Insurance, in: Stoltzfus Jost, T., (ed.): Health Care Coverage Determinations: An International Comparative Study, Open University Press, 2005, p. 125.Google Scholar
  74. 79.
    Pereira, J., Campos, A. C. de, Ramos, F., Simões, J., and Reis, V.: Health Care Reform and Cost Containment in Portugal, in: Mossialos, E. and Le Grand, J., (eds.): ibid., p. 648.Google Scholar
  75. 80.
    Buxton, M. J.: Heart Transplantation in the UK: The Decision-Making Context of an Economic Evaluation, in: Stocking, B., (ed.): ibid., pp. 44–45.Google Scholar
  76. 81.
    Buxton, M. J.: ibid., p. 43.Google Scholar
  77. 82.
    Hughes, J.: Health Expenditure and Cost Containment in Ireland, in: Mossialos, E. and Le Grand, J., (eds.): ibid., p. 506.Google Scholar
  78. 83.
    Stocking, B. (ed.): ibid.Google Scholar
  79. 85.
    Lancry, P-J. and Sandier, S.: Twenty Years of Cures for the French Health Care System, in: Mossialos, E. and Le Grand, J., (eds.): ibid., p. 456.Google Scholar
  80. 86.
    Crainich, D. and Closon, M-C.: Cost Containment and Health Care Reform in Belgium, in: Mossialos, E. and Le Grand, J., (eds.): ibid., p. 259.Google Scholar
  81. 87.
    Ministry of Social Affairs and Health: Social Security and Health Care in Finland, the Finnish Government Printing Centre, 1991.Google Scholar
  82. 88.
    Hindori, M.: Health Sector Reform in Suriname: Draft White Paper, Ministry of Health/Inter-American Development Bank, Paramaribo, November, 2002, p. 18.Google Scholar
  83. 89.
    Standing Committee of the Hospitals of the European Union (HOPE): Newsletter No. 7 January 2004.Google Scholar
  84. 90.
    McKee, M., MacLehose, L., and Nolte, E.: Health and Enlargement, in: McKee, N., MacLehose, L. and Nolte, E., (eds.): Health Policy and European Union Enlargement, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Studies, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 3.Google Scholar
  85. 91.
    Jansen van Galen, J.: ibid., pp. 93 and 184.Google Scholar
  86. 92.
    Wanless, D.: Securing our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View; Interim Report, The Public Enquiry Unit, HM Treasury, November, 2001, p. 5.Google Scholar
  87. 94.
    Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G.: ibid.Google Scholar
  88. 95.
    For an analysis regarding the Netherlands in this respect, see: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid: Bewijzen van Goede Dienstverlening, Amsterdam University Press, 2004, pp. 81–83.Google Scholar
  89. 96.
    Wanless, D.: ibid., p. 51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Personalised recommendations