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: https://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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    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. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Kurt R. Brekke & Tor Helge Holmås & Karin Monstad & Odd Rune Straume, 2020. "How Does The Type of Remuneration Affect Physician Behavior?," American Journal of Health Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(1), pages 104-138.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Thomas Reindersma & Isabelle Fabbricotti & Kees Ahaus & Sandra Sülz, 2022. "Integrated Payment, Fragmented Realities? A Discourse Analysis of Integrated Payment in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-14, July.
    12. Lesley Chim & Glenn Salkeld & Patrick Kelly & Wendy Lipworth & Dyfrig A Hughes & Martin R Stockler, 2017. "Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
    13. Chamberlain, Charlotte & Owen-Smith, Amanda & MacKichan, Fiona & Donovan, Jenny L. & Hollingworth, William, 2019. "“What’s fair to an individual is not always fair to a population”: A qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(8), pages 706-712.
    14. 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.
    15. Jeremiah Hurley & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mita Giacomini & Deirdre DeJean & Michel Grignon, 2017. "Non-market resource allocation and the public’s interpretation of need: an empirical investigation in the context of health care," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 117-143, June.
    16. repec:zbw:rwirep:0529 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Boxebeld, Sander & Geijsen, Tom & Tuit, Charlotte & Exel, Job van & Makady, Amr & Maes, Laurence & van Agthoven, Michel & Mouter, Niek, 2024. "Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 341(C).
    18. Meiying Xie & Xiang Cai & Zhengli Xu & Nan Zhou & Dongqing Yan, 2022. "Factors contributing to abandonment of household biogas digesters in rural China: a study of stakeholder perspectives using Q-methodology," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 7698-7724, June.
    19. Rudoler, David & Peckham, Allie & Grudniewicz, Agnes & Marchildon, Greg, 2019. "Coordinating primary care services: A case of policy layering," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 215-221.
    20. Daniel M. Campagne, 2021. "Accountability for an unhealthy lifestyle," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(3), pages 351-355, April.
    21. 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.

    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: https://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.