DOCSLIB.ORG

Efficiency Measurement in Health Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Efficiency Measurement in Health Systems Cover_WHO_nr46_Mise en page 1 5/01/17 12:06 Page 1 46 Efficiency is one of the central preoccupations of health policy-makers and managers, and EFFICIENCY SYSTEM HEALTH justifiably so. Inefficient care can lead to unnecessarily poor outcomes for patients, either Health System 46 in terms of their health, or in their experience of the health system. What is more, inefficiency anywhere in the system is likely to deny health improvement to patients who might have been treated if resources had been used better. Improving efficiency is therefore a compelling policy goal, especially in systems facing serious resource constraints. Efficiency Series The desire for greater efficiency motivates a great deal of decision-making, but the routine use of efficiency metrics to guide decisions is severely lacking. How to make measurement Health Policy To improve efficiency in the health system we must first be able to measure it and must therefore ensure that our metrics are relevant and useful for policy-makers and managers. In this book the authors explore the state of the art on efficiency measurement in health matter for policy and management systems and international experts offer insights into the pitfalls and potential associated with various measurement techniques. Edited by The authors show that Jonathan Cylus • The core idea of efficiency is easy to understand in principle - maximizing valued outputs relative to inputs, but is often difficult to make operational in real-life situations Irene Papanicolas • There have been numerous advances in data collection and availability, as well as Peter C. Smith innovative methodological approaches that give valuable insights into how efficiently AND MANAGEMENT POLICY FOR MATTER MAKE MEASUREMENT TO HOW health care is delivered • Our simple analytical framework can facilitate the development and interpretation of efficiency indicators The authors use examples from Europe and around the world to explore how policy-makers and managers have used efficiency measurement to support their work in the past, and suggest ways they can make better use of efficiency measurement in the future. The study came out of the Observatory’s LSE hub. It links to a forthcoming study offering further insights into how to develop and interpret policy relevant efficiency metrics and to the earlier volumes on performance measurement. It will be of considerable use to policy- makers and their advisors, health care regulators, patient representative groups, managers and researchers. The editors Jonathan Cylus, Irene Papanicolas, Peter C. Smith C. Peter Irene Papanicolas, Jonathan Cylus, Jonathan Cylus is Research Fellow, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, London School of Economics and Political Science. Irene Papanicolas is Assistant Professor of Health Economics, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science. Peter C. Smith is Emeritus Professor of Health Policy at Imperial College London and European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Health Policy Series No. 46 9 7 8 ISBN 9289050418 www.healthobservatory.eu 9 2 8 9 0 5 0 4 1 8 Health system efficiency How to make measurement matter for policy and management The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies supports and promotes evidence-based health policy-making through comprehensive and rigorous analysis of health systems in Europe. It brings together a wide range of policy-makers, academics and practitioners to analyse trends in health reform, drawing on experience from across Europe to illuminate policy issues. The Observatory is a partnership hosted by the WHO Regional Office for Europe; which includes the governments of Austria, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the Veneto Region of Italy; the European Commission; the World Bank; UNCAM (French National Union of Health Insurance Funds); the London School of Economics and Political Science; and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. The Observatory has a secretariat in Brussels and it has hubs in London (at LSE and LSHTM) and at the Technical University of Berlin. Health system efficiency How to make measurement matter for policy and management Edited by Jonathan Cylus, Irene Papanicolas and Peter C. Smith Keywords: HEALTH CARE EVALUATION MECHANISMS EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE DECISION MAKING Address requests about publications to: Publications, WHO Regional Office for Europe, UN City, Marmorvej 51, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. Alternatively, complete an online request form for documentation, health information, or for permission to quote or translate, on the Regional Office web site (http://www.euro.who.int/ pubrequest). © World Health Organization 2016 (acting as the host organization for, and secretariat of, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies) All rights reserved. The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies be liable for damages arising from its use. The views expressed by authors, editors, or expert groups do not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies or any of its partners. ISBN 978 92 890 5041 8 Printed in the United Kingdom Typeset by Tetragon, London Cover design by M2M Table of contents Acknowledgements viii List of contributors ix List of tables, boxes and figures x List of abbreviations xiii Glossary xvi Preface xviii Chapter 1 A framework for thinking about health system efficiency 1 Jonathan Cylus, Irene Papanicolas, Peter C. Smith 1.1 Why is health sector efficiency important? 1 1.2 What is inefficiency? 2 1.3 Allocative inefficiency 4 1.4 Technical inefficiency 6 1.5 An analytical framework for thinking about efficiency indicators 10 1.6 Concluding comments 18 References 20 Chapter 2 Measuring and comparing health system outputs: using patient classification systems for efficiency analyses 21 Wilm Quentin, Alexander Geissler, Reinhard Busse 2.1 Introduction: what are the benefits of classifying patients into groups? 21 2.2 DRG systems in Europe: background and definitions 23 2.3 Application of DRGs: indicators of efficiency 27 2.4 Patient classification systems for other areas of health care 35 2.5 Conclusion: advantages and limitations of patient classification systems 44 References 48 Chapter 3 Using registry data to compare health care efficiency 53 Reijo Sund and Unto Häkkinen 3.1 Introduction 53 3.2 Using registry data to define episodes of care 54 3.3 Constructing indicators based on episodes of care 56 3.4 Comparing provider performance: the need for risk adjustment 61 vi Health system efficiency 3.5 Adjustment techniques 64 3.6 Examples of efficiency considerations 64 3.7 International comparisons 66 3.8 The EuroHOPE project 67 3.9 The EuroREACH diabetes case study 70 4.0 Conclusions 72 References 73 Chapter 4 Management accounting and efficiency in health services: the foundational role of cost analysis 75 Christopher S. Chapman, Anja Kern, Aziza Laguecir and Wilm Quentin 4.1 Introduction 75 4.2 Analysing the challenge of cost system design 78 4.3 Demonstrating cost system design choices with two detailed examples 83 4.4 The role of cost data in delivering efficient health care 90 4.5 Cost data and support of local clinical and managerial decision-making 93 4.6 Conclusions 97 References 98 Chapter 5 Health system efficiency: measurement and policy 99 Bruce Hollingsworth 5.1 Introduction: data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis 99 5.2 Efficiency measurement methods 100 5.3 The application of DEA 105 5.4 Setting out the protocol 109 5.5 Conclusions 113 References 113 Chapter 6 Cost–effectiveness analysis 115 Ranjeeta Thomas and Kalipso Chalkidou 6.1 Introduction 115 6.2 Cost–effectiveness analysis: an overview of its strengths and weaknesses 116 6.3 Methodological issues in the use of economic evaluations at the micro level 119 6.4 Cost–effectiveness analysis as a measure of organizational and system efficiency 123 6.5 Methodological and informational challenges 124 6.6 Cost–effectiveness analysis in policy: present and future 129 6.7 Conclusion 134 References
Load more

Recommended publications
  • STICK SHIFT Autonomous Vehicles, Driving Jobs, and the Future of Work
    STICK SHIFT Autonomous Vehicles, Driving Jobs, and the Future of Work www.globalpolicysolutions.org ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Center for Global Policy Solutions would like to thank the following researchers for their help in developing this report: DR. ALGERNON AUSTIN Demos MS. CHERRIE BUCKNOR Center for Economic and Policy Research MR. KEVIN CASHMAN Center for Economic and Policy Research DR. MAYA ROCKEYMOORE Center for Global Policy Solutions This report was made possible as a result of the generous support provided by the Ford Foundation. RECOMMENDED CITATION: Center for Global Policy Solutions. (2017). Stick Shift: Autonomous Vehicles, Driving Jobs, and the Future of Work. Washington, DC: Center for Global Policy Solutions. www.globalpolicysolutions.org EXECUTIVE SUMMARY States are employed in driving occupations. Though it is possible that workers displaced by autonomous- At this moment, more than 30 companies across vehicle technology may eventually find new jobs the globe say they are working on autonomous- at some point, the analysis contained in this paper vehicle technology. These companies range from is focused on the immediate, short-term impact to computing-technology firms like Apple, Google, and employment in the transportation sector if a rapid Intel to those usually associated with automobile transition to fully autonomous vehicles were to occur. manufacturing1 such as BMW, Ford, Honda, and Volvo.2 Their most optimistic predictions are that Using data from the 2010 to 2014 merged American in as few as three to five years,3 fully autonomous Community Survey released by the U.S. Census vehicles—automobiles without human drivers—will be Bureau, this paper estimates the labor market impact in regular use on the road.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Tools and Metrics to Support Employer Selection of Health Plans
    Research Report Final Report: Evaluation of Tools and Metrics to Support Employer Selection of Health Plans Soeren Mattke, Kristin R. Van Busum, Grant Martsolf Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor The research described in this report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, and was produced within RAND Health, a division of the RAND Corporation. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND—make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/ contribute.html R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2013 RAND Corporation This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html). RAND OFFICES SANTA MONICA, CA • WASHINGTON, DC PITTSBURGH, PA • NEW ORLEANS, LA • JACKSON, MS • BOSTON, MA DOHA, QA • CAMBRIDGE, UK • BRUSSELS, BE Preface This Research Report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor. It is based on a review of the trade and scientific literature and health insurers’ websites; an analysis of product and service offerings from a random sample of 70 health insurance companies; an expert panel meeting with 15 individuals representing a variety of perspectives, including academia, consumer advocacy groups, measures developers, and employer coalitions; and case study interviews with nine employers and business coalitions.
    [Show full text]
  • Value-Driven Health Care Purchasing: Four States That Are Ahead of the Curve
    VALUE-DRIVEN HEALTH CARE PURCHASING: FOUR STATES THAT ARE AHEAD OF THE CURVE OVERVIEW Sharon Silow-Carroll and Tanya Alteras Health Management Associates August 2007 ABSTRACT: Health care purchasers, suppliers, and consumers are rallying for better-quality health care. In response, several states are pursuing value-based purchasing (VBP) initiatives that emphasize collection of quality-of-care data, transparency of quality and cost information, and incentives. In this overview of public–private VBP efforts in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin, the authors find that tiered premiums, pay-for-performance measures, and the designation of high-performance providers as “centers of excellence” are paying off. Minnesota, for example, has used incentives to achieve about $20 million in savings in 2006. Similarly, Wisconsin’s Department of Employee Trust Funds has announced premium rate increases in the single digits for the third straight year. More research is necessary to determine the true impact of VBP, but health plans and providers are paying attention to and learning from these current efforts. (Note: Accompanying the overview report are four separate state case studies, available at http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=515778.) Support for this research was provided by The Commonwealth Fund. The views presented here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Commonwealth Fund or its directors, officers, or staff. This report and other Fund publications are available online at www.commonwealthfund.org. To learn more about new publications when they become available, visit the Fund’s Web site and register to receive e-mail alerts. Commonwealth Fund pub.
    [Show full text]
  • ECON Thesaurus on Brexit
    STUDY Requested by the ECON Committee ECON Thesaurus on Brexit Fourth edition Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Authors: Stephanie Honnefelder, Doris Kolassa, Sophia Gernert, Roberto Silvestri Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union July 2017 EN DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT A: ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC POLICY ECON Thesaurus on Brexit Fourth edition Abstract This thesaurus is a collection of ECON related articles, papers and studies on the possible withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Recent literature from various sources is categorised, chronologically listed – while keeping the content of previous editions - and briefly summarised. To facilitate the use of this tool and to allow an easy access, certain documents may appear in more than one category. The thesaurus is non-exhaustive and may be updated. This document was provided by Policy Department A at the request of the ECON Committee. IP/A/ECON/2017-15 July 2017 PE 607.326 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. AUTHORS Stephanie HONNEFELDER Doris KOLASSA Sophia GERNERT, trainee Roberto SILVESTRI, trainee RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Stephanie HONNEFELDER Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support EP committees and other parliamentary bodies
    [Show full text]
  • Adjudication of Ofcom Content Sanctions Committee
    Ofcom Content Sanctions Committee Consideration of sanction against Channel Four Television Corporation in respect of its service Channel 4. 1 For Breaches of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code: • Rule 2.3 – Broadcasters must when applying generally accepted standards ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context; and • Rule 1.3 – Children must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from unsuitable material. On 15, 17, 18, 19 January 2007 Decision To direct Channel Four (and S4C) to broadcast a statement of Ofcom’s findings in a form determined by Ofcom immediately before the start of the broadcast of the first programme of the eighth series of Big Brother on Channel 4; immediately before the start of the broadcast of the first re- versioned programme of the eighth series of Big Brother on Channel 4; and immediately before the start of the broadcast of the programme in which the first eviction from the eighth series of Big Brother occurs on Channel 4. 1 This sanction also applies to Sianel Pedwar Cymru (“S4C”) which transmits Channel 4’s (Celebrity) Big Brother series on its service. 1 Contents Section Page 1 Summary 3 2 Background 6 3 Legal Framework 8 4 Issues raised with Channel Four and Channel Four’s Response 12 5 Ofcom’s Adjudication: Introduction 36 6 Not In Breach 42 7 Resolved 55 8 In Breach 57 9 Sanctions Decision 66 2 1 Summary 1.1 On the basis detailed in the Decision, under powers delegated from the Ofcom Board to Ofcom’s Content Sanctions Committee (“the Committee”), the Committee has decided to impose a statutory sanction on Channel Four (and S4C) in light of the serious nature of the failure by Channel Four to ensure compliance with Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Quality Health Care
    . Quality Health Care • Centers of Excellence • Improving Quality Quality Health Care Quality • Pay for Performance • Literature Centers of Excellence The term “Center of Excellence” has been widely used and in many different ways. The basic concept behind health care centers of excellence is that a provider who specializes in a particular type of program or service can produce better outcomes. One example of a center of excellence program is the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) cancer center program that was created in 1971 to establish regional centers of excellence in cancer research and patient care. The NCI cancer center designation is an official designation. Providers must meet certain criteria and demonstrate excellence in research, cancer prevention and clinical services. NCI designation helps institutions compete for both research dollars and patients. The term “Center of Excellence” has also been used by many without official designation. Some providers of care simply proclaim themselves centers of excellence. This is especially true for specialty hospitals that have been proliferated in many parts of the country. While these facilities may specialize in a particular service, there may not be clinical evidence demonstrating that the care they provide is superior. Similarly, insurers may include "Centers of Excellence" in their networks, but the extent to which these facilities have met established performance benchmarks is not always clear. While some insurers go to great length to identify the highest quality providers for certain services, others may establish a "Center of Excellence" primarily to concentrate volume to achieve more favorable payment rates. Much of the literature on Centers of Excellence has focuses on the relationship between volume and outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Danielle Lloyd Forced to Defend 'Intense' Cosmetic Treatment | Daily Mail Online
    Danielle Lloyd forced to defend 'intense' cosmetic treatment | Daily Mail Online Cookie Policy Feedback Like 3.9M Follow DailyMail Thursday, May 5th 2016 10AM 14°C 1PM 17°C 5-Day Forecast Home News U.S. Sport TV&Showbiz Australia Femail Health Science Money Video Travel Fashion Finder Latest Headlines TV&Showbiz U.S. Showbiz Headlines Arts Pictures Showbiz Boards Login 'It's not actually lipo': Danielle Lloyd forced Site Web to defend 'intense' cosmetic treatment after Like Follow Daily Mail Celeb @DailyMailCeleb bragging about getting her body summer- Follow ready Daily Mail Celeb By BECKY FREETH FOR MAILONLINE +1 Daily Mail Celeb PUBLISHED: 16:41, 20 January 2015 | UPDATED: 18:12, 20 January 2015 34 89 DON'T MISS shares View comments 'Ahh to be a Size 6 again': Gogglebox star Danielle Lloyd's Instagram followers voiced their concern on Tuesday, when the slender starlet posted Scarlett Moffatt shares a picture of her receiving what she said was intense 'lipo treatment'. a throwback of 'a very skinny minnie me' after Users who thought she was having the cosmetic procedure 'liposuction' - which removes body fat - vowing to overhaul her were quickly corrected by the glamour model in her defence. lifestyle The 31-year-old, who claimed she was 'getting ready for summer' in the initial Instagram snap, insisted it was a skin-tightening procedure known as a 'radio frequency treatment'. Chrissy Teigen reveals her incredible Scroll down for video post-baby body as she cuddles little Luna in sweet photos shared by her mother Relishing motherhood
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report
    NATIONAL HEALTHCARE QUALITY & DISPARITIES REPORT 2018 2015 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report and National Quality Stategy 5th Anniversary Update c This document is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission. Citation of the source is appreciated. Suggested citation: 2018 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; September 2019. AHRQ Pub. No. 19-0070-EF. 2018 NATIONAL HEALTHCARE QUALITY AND DISPARITIES REPORT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 www.ahrq.gov AHRQ Publication No. 19-0070-EF September 2019 www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/index.html ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report (QDR) is the product of collaboration among agencies from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), other federal departments, and the private sector. Many individuals guided and contributed to this effort. Without their magnanimous support, the report would not have been possible. Specifically, we thank: Primary AHRQ Staff: Gopal Khanna, Francis Chesley, Virginia Mackay-Smith, Jeff Brady, Erin Grace, Karen Chaves, Nancy Wilson, Darryl Gray, Barbara Barton, Doreen Bonnett, and Irim Azam. HHS Interagency Workgroup (IWG) for the QDR: Susan Jenkins (ACL), Irim Azam (AHRQ), Barbara Barton (AHRQ), Doreen Bonnett (AHRQ), Karen Chaves (AHRQ), Fran Chevarley (AHRQ), Camille Fabiyi (AHRQ), Darryl Gray (AHRQ), Kevin
    [Show full text]
  • Telehealth After COVID-19: Clarifying Policy Goals for a Way Forward
    January 2021 Perspective EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE LORI USCHER-PINES, MONIQUE MARTINEAU Telehealth After COVID-19 Clarifying Policy Goals for a Way Forward n March 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic shut- tered communities and disrupted the health care delivery system. But clini- Icians quickly dusted off their webcams and leveraged telehealth to continue care—and keep their practices afloat—while still meeting social distancing guidelines. Temporary, dramatic policy waivers (see box) broadened access to and payment for telehealth on an unprecedented scale. These policy changes led to skyrocketing telehealth use in spring 2020. At the time, there was a lot of talk about how tele- health’s time had finally arrived, and how genies were not returning to their bottles. But that might be the wrong metaphor for telehealth use in 2020. The surge in tele- health use had ebbed somewhat by the summer months (Mehrotra et al., 2020), and it is too soon to tell whether the initial enthusiasm for virtual visits was borne of desperation (Uscher-Pines, 2020) or whether some of the newfound appreciation for telehealth can persist under the right policy conditions. C O R P O R A T I O N Federal Telehealth Restrictions Temporarily Changed During the Public Health Emergency and Responsible Agency or Legislation Medicare • Expand the types of providers that can furnish and are eligible to bill Medicare for telehealth services (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security [CARES] Act) • Allow providers eligible to bill
    [Show full text]
  • Jrc118393.Pdf
    JRC Technical Report Do robots really destroy jobs? Evidence from Europe JRC Working Papers Series on Labour, Education and Technology 2020/01 David Klenert, Enrique Fernández-Macías, José-Ignacio Antón LABOUR EDUCATIONJoint TECHNOLOGYEUR 28558 EN Research Centre This Working Paper is part of a Working paper series on Labour, Education and Technology by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) The JRC is the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. Contact information Name: Klenert David Address: Joint Research Centre, European Commission (Seville, Spain) Email: [email protected] Tel.: +34 9544-87114 EU Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC118393 Seville: European Commission, 2020 © European Union, 2020 The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a High Performance Health Care System for Vulnerable Populations: Funding for Safety-Net Hospitals
    Toward a High Performance Health Care System for Vulnerable Populations: Funding for Safety-Net Hospitals Prepared for the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System Deborah Bachrach, Laura Braslow, and Anne Karl Manatt Health Solutions March 2012 THE COMMONWEALTH FUND COMMISSION ON A HIGH PERFORMANCE HEALTH SYSTEM Membership David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. Jon M. Kingsdale, Ph.D. Chair of the Commission Consultant Stuart Guterman Samuel O. Thier Professor of Executive Director Medicine and Professor of Health Gregory P. Poulsen, M.B.A. Vice President for Payment Care Policy Massachusetts General Senior Vice President and System Reform Hospital/Partners HealthCare System Intermountain Health Care The Commonwealth Fund and Harvard Medical School Neil R. Powe, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A. Cathy Schoen, M.S. Maureen Bisognano, M.Sc. Chief, Medical Services Research Director President and Chief Executive Officer San Francisco General Hospital Senior Vice President for Institute for Healthcare Improvement Constance B. Wofsy Distinguished Research and Evaluation Professor and Vice-Chair of Medicine The Commonwealth Fund Sandra Bruce, M.S. University of California, San Francisco President and Chief Executive Officer Rachel Nuzum, M.P.H. Resurrection Health Care Louise Y. Probst, R.N., M.B.A. Senior Policy Director Executive Director Vice President for Federal Christine K. Cassel, M.D. St. Louis Area Business Health and State Health Policy President and Chief Executive Officer Coalition The Commonwealth Fund American Board of Internal Medicine and ABIM Foundation Martín J. Sepúlveda, M.D., FACP IBM Fellow and Vice President Michael Chernew, Ph.D. Integrated Health Services Professor IBM Corporation Department of Health Care Policy Harvard Medical School David A.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Announcement HY 2015
    News Release Aviva plc Half Year Report 2015 6 August 2015 Aviva plc 2015 Interim Results Announcement Mark Wilson, Group Chief Executive Officer, said: “After three years of turnaround we are now moving to a different phase of delivery. We have improved the balance sheet, simplified the Group and we are now transforming our business. The progress is evident in these results. “The Friends Life integration is ahead of schedule and we have delivered £63 million of run-rate synergies after three months. This is encouraging but nowhere near complete. Amidst the integration, our UK Life business continued to grow, with value of new business up 31% excluding Friends Life. “In general insurance, premiums1 and operating profits were higher. The combined ratio was 93.1%, the best in eight years, and underwriting profits increased 45%. “The 15% increase in the dividend is a further step towards achieving our target payout ratio and underlines our confidence in our cash flow and the business.“ HY15 numbers include Friends Life from 10 April 2015, the acquisition completion date. HY14 is Aviva standalone. Profit Operating profit2 £1,170 million (HY14: £1,071 million) Underlying growth and Friends Life contribution more than offset adverse forex and disposals IFRS profit after tax £545 million (HY14: £863 million) including £271 million of acquisition related integration and amortisation costs Cash Cash remittances3 £495 million (HY14: £623 million), as a result of moving the UK Life dividend to a bi-annual payment, in line with Group dividend
    [Show full text]