Search

Objectives: Unwarranted clinical variations in radical prostatectomy (RP) procedures are frequently reported, yet less attention is given to the variations in associated costs. This issue can further widen disparities in access to care and provoke questions about the overall value of the procedure. The present paper aimed to delve into the disparities in hospital, medical provider and out-of-pocket costs for RP procedures in Australia, discussing plausible causes and potential policy opportunities. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using Medibank Private claims data for RP procedures conducted in Australian hospitals between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020 was undertaken. Results: Considerable variations in both medical provider and out-of-pocket costs were observed across the country, with variations evident between different states or territories. Particularly striking were the discrepancies in the costs charged by medical providers, with a notable contrast between the 10th and 90th percentiles revealing a substantial difference of A$9925. Hospitals in Australia exhibited relatively comparable charges for RP procedures. Conclusions: Initiatives such as enhancing transparency regarding individual medical provider costs and implementing fee regulations with healthcare providers may be useful in curbing the variations in RP procedure costs. What is known about the topic? Unwarranted clinical variations in radical prostatectomy procedures are well documented in the literature; however, variations in cost are less widely reported. What does this paper add? This paper aims to highlight the cost variations in radical prostatectomy procedures in Australia, discussing their plausible causes, implications and proposing potential policy opportunities. What are the implications for practitioners? Excessive fees imposed by medical providers may contribute to inequalities in healthcare access. Enhancing transparency of individual medical provider costs and implementing fee regulations may be useful in controlling unwarranted variations in procedure costs. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Value based healthcare beyond the clinical domain is the focus of this case study. We share NSW Health's experiences in achieving value through a focus on outcomes in non-clinical and clinical support services using examples that demonstrate key aspects across the commissioning cycle. These include: the importance of stakeholder engagement in the planning phase to later success; the critical role of non-clinical services in patient experience; the opportunity to facilitate value by introducing new approaches in business areas such as procurement; and the role of clinical supports such as digital enablement to facilitate outcome-focussed clinical models. Applying a value lens to non-clinical services can increase the potential benefits to patients, clinicians and the system. What is known about the topic? Value based healthcare is a way of making transparent and equitable decisions about resource allocation to deliver better outcomes for individuals, health services and the system. What does this paper add? This paper reflects on the opportunity to deliver value based healthcare beyond clinical models of care, including in non-clinical and clinical support services, using a commissioning approach. What are the implications for practitioners? The learnings shared through the case studies presented can be applied by practitioners to their own projects to support value based approaches across all aspects of health care. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Millions of Australians use the private health system every year. They should receive safe, high-quality, value-based care. However, poor policy and inadequate regulation of medical technology is driving low-value care at great expense to consumers and the broader health system. Key drivers include the Prescribed List of Medical Devices and Human Tissue, gaps in quality and safety controls for devices being used, and marketing and conflicts of interest. All of these should be addressed to reduce low-value care in Australia's private health system, so consumers are protected from harm and limited health budgets are used effectively. What is known about the topic? With health expenditure rising unsustainably, there is a growing focus on ways to reduce low-value care to improve health outcomes and eliminate unnecessary costs. What does this paper add? This paper details drivers of low-value care in Australia's private health system and recommendations to overcome them. Drivers include the Prescribed List of Medical Devices, gaps in safety and quality controls, and conflicts of interest and marketing. What are the implications for practitioners? These insights are relevant to clinicians, researchers, policymakers, consumers and health business leaders with an interest in low-value care. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The study examined emergency department (ED) presentations, unplanned hospitalisations and potentially preventable hospitalisations in older people receiving long-term care by type of care received (i.e. permanent residential aged care or home care packages in the community), in Australia in 2019. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Registry of Senior Australians National Historical Cohort. Individuals were included if they resided in South Australia, Queensland, Victoria or New South Wales, received a home care package or permanent residential aged care in 2019 and were aged ≥65 years. The cumulative incidence of ED presentations, unplanned hospitalisations and potentially preventable hospitalisations in each of the long-term care service types were estimated during the year. Days in hospital per 1000 individuals were also calculated. Results: The study included 203,278 individuals accessing permanent residential aged care (209,639 episodes) and 118,999 accessing home care packages in the community (127,893 episodes). A higher proportion of people accessing home care packages had an ED presentation (43.1% [95% confidence interval, 42.8–43.3], vs 37.8% [37.6–38.0]), unplanned hospitalisation (39.8% [39.6–40.1] vs 33.4% [33.2–33.6]) and potentially preventable hospitalisation (11.8% [11.6–12.0] vs 8.2% [8.1–8.4]) than people accessing permanent residential aged care. Individuals with home care packages had more days in hospital due to unplanned hospitalisations than those in residential care (7745 vs 3049 days/1000 individuals). Conclusions: While a high proportion of older people in long-term care have ED presentations, unplanned hospitalisations and potentially preventable hospitalisations, people in the community with home care packages experience these events at a higher frequency. What is known about the topic? Unplanned hospitalisations and emergency department presentations are frequent and burdensome for older people receiving long-term aged care. What does this paper add? While unplanned hospitalisations and emergency department presentations were high in all people receiving long-term care, these events were higher in people receiving home care packages than those in residential aged care. What are the implications for practitioners? Further efforts to address the high unplanned hospitalisations and emergency department presentations experienced by the increasing number of older adults accessing home care packages are required to allow this population to remain at home successfully. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a case study on the design and implementation of a value-based bundled package of care for patients with early-stage breast cancer treated in the private health sector in Australia. Value-based healthcare is an essential change to how we deliver healthcare, shifting the focus from paying for individual services provided to a focus on the health outcomes gained over a full cycle of care. The Australian health system has unintentionally created barriers to value-based cancer care through fragmented care pathways and complex funding arrangements where patients can unexpectedly encounter high out-of-pocket costs. A team of clinicians, service providers, health systems and funding experts, private health insurers and consumers have collaborated to design and pilot a complete bundled package of care for breast cancer patients which aims to address these challenges. With 40 patients recruited to date, early evaluation results show positive patient experience of 'joined-up' care and financial transparency. This case study provides a high-level overview of the approach taken to design and implement the Breast Cancer Bundle and the lessons learned for its expansion in both public and private settings. What is known about this topic? Enabling value-based healthcare is essential to improve healthcare, focusing on outcomes gained over a full cycle of care. Patients diagnosed with cancer frequently report care to be disjointed and the cause of financial stress, thus can particularly benefit from value-based care models. What does this paper add? This case study describes the design and implementation of a bundled package of care for patients with early-stage breast cancer treated in the private health sector in Australia. What are the implications for practitioners? Lessons learned through this process provide considerations for expansion of this model of care. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to quantify the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and perceived financial burden among Australian men with localised prostate cancer in the first 6 months after diagnosis, by primary management option. Methods: This cost-analysis quantified OOP costs using administrative claims data and self-reported survey data. Financial burden was assessed using the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity–Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (COST-FACIT) tool. Participants were recruited into a randomised control trial from public or private treatment centres in Victoria and Queensland. Generalised linear models were used to predict OOP costs and COST-FACIT scores. Results: Median total OOP costs within 6 months of diagnosis for 256 Australian patients with localised prostate cancer was A$1172 (A$343–2548). Up to 50% of the sample reported A$0 costs for most medical services. Compared with those managed with active surveillance, men having active treatment had 6.4 (95% CI: 3.2–12.7) times greater total OOP costs. Management option, higher Gleason score at diagnosis and having multiple comorbidities were significant predictors of higher OOP costs. Overall high scores on the COST-FACIT indicated low levels of financial burden for the entire sample. Conclusion: Largely attributable to being managed with active surveillance, Australian men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer reported relatively low OOP costs and financial burden in the first 6 months post-diagnosis. Together with clinical outcomes, clinicians can use this up to date evidence on costs and perceived financial burdens to assist localised prostate cancer patients and their families make informed decisions about their preferred management option. What is known about the topic? International evidence suggests that men with low-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance initially incur lower out-of-pocket costs than those managed with active treatment. What does this paper add? Australian men with low-risk prostate cancer report low out-of-pocket costs and financial burden in the first 6 months post-diagnosis. Compared with those managed with active surveillance, men having active treatment had 6–7 times greater out-of-pocket expenses. What are the implications for practitioners? Being managed by active surveillance as the primary management option for low-risk prostate cancer reduces the financial burdens associated with a cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Consumer-centred care is fundamental to high-quality health care, with allied health professionals playing a pivotal role in hospital settings. Allied health typically operates within standard weekday working-hours. Consumer preferences for receiving allied health services are largely unexplored but could inform whether weekend and/or out-of-hours services are required. This study aims to understand consumer preferences for hospital-based inpatient and outpatient allied health services. Methods: Using a cross-sectional survey and convenience sampling approach, consumers of a public health service in Melbourne, Australia were surveyed about preferences for allied health service delivery. Electronic health record reviews compared the accuracy of self-reported service delivery times. Descriptive statistics, concordance and predictive values were calculated. Responses to free-text survey items were analysed using content analysis. Results: Of 120 participants (79% response rate), most (69%) received allied health services, however, almost half of inpatient responders (44%) were unsure of the specific allied health professional involved. Audit results found moderate–high concordance overall (range, 77–96%) between self-reported and audit-identified allied health services by profession. Most inpatient responders had no strong day of week preference, equally selecting weekdays and weekend days, with most preferring services between 8 am and 4 pm. Outpatient responders (81%) preferred a weekday appointment between 8 am and 12 pm or before 8 am (29%) to complete scheduled activities early in the day. Conclusion: While provision of allied health services during standard working-hours was preferred by most consumers, some inpatient and outpatient consumers are receptive to receiving weekend and out-of-hours services, respectively. Decisions about offering these services should consider operational capacity and research evidence. What is known about the topic? Research on consumer acceptance of out-of-hours or weekend allied health services is lacking, with an assumption of consumer willingness and demand for these service models. What does this paper add? Hospital inpatients are generally indifferent to the day of allied health services, preferring weekday or weekend day equally, typically between 8 am and 4 pm, while outpatients favour weekday mornings. Although consumers reported that their needs were met by allied health services, there was a lack of awareness about the specific services they received. What are the implications for practitioners? Results highlight the importance of not only aligning service delivery with consumer preferences for timing, but also enhancing awareness and understanding of the available allied health services for consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Data linkage is a very powerful research tool in epidemiology, however, establishing this can be a lengthy and intensive process. This paper reports on the complex landscape of conducting data linkage projects in Australia. Methods. We reviewed the processes, required documentation, and applications required to conduct multi-jurisdictional data linkage across Australia, in 2023. Results. Obtaining the necessary approvals to conduct linkage will likely take nearly 2 years (estimated 730 days, including 605 days from initial submission to obtaining all ethical approvals and an estimated further 125 days for the issuance of unexpected additionally required approvals). Ethical review for linkage projects ranged from 51 to 128 days from submission to ethical approval, and applications consisted of 9-25 documents. Conclusions. Major obstacles to conducting multi-jurisdictional data linkage included the complexity of the process, and substantial time and financial costs. The process was characterised by inefficiencies at several levels, reduplication, and a lack of any key accountabilities for timely performance of processes. Data linkage is an invaluable resource for epidemiological research. Further streamlining, establishing accountability, and greater collaboration between jurisdictions is needed to ensure data linkage is both accessible and feasible to researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 'modern' value-based healthcare (VBHC) movement provides an opportunity to not only reform health care towards a more equitable, community-centred system, but to also acknowledge, honour and learn from global Indigenous knowledge, systems, and ways of valuing knowing, being and doing. For Australia as a settler-colonial state, efforts to implement VBHC here are doomed to fail until the continued legacy of settler-colonial violence and systemic racism pervading Australia's healthcare system is acknowledged, addressed and ameliorated. What is known about the topic? To succeed in efforts to implement equitable, sustained value-based healthcare (VBHC), the foundations and ongoing impacts of settler-colonialism and neoliberalism on which the Australian healthcare system is built must be acknowledged and addressed. What does this paper add? The 'modern' VBHC movement provides an opportunity to not only reform health care towards a more equitable, community-centred system, but to also acknowledge, honour and learn from global Indigenous knowledge, systems, and ways of valuing knowing, being and doing. What are the implications for practitioners? This article is an invitation to sit, listen and learn. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Fostering a research culture and enhancing research capacity within the workforce is essential for any health service aiming to provide evidence-based care. This study aims to explore the research culture and capacity in a community health service setting and provide a comparison to previous published research in other health service settings. Methods. Participants were invited to complete a survey consisting of demographics and the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool. Median and interquartile ranges were calculated for each RCC item and compared to three Australian and one international comparison. Results. A total of 73 staff members from Metro North Community and Oral Health service participated. The team-level scores for the RCC were overall the lowest. Comparison to previously published research using the RCC indicated marginally higher scores for individual-level items in our study across all domains. Individual-level items were very weak to weakly correlated with the team and organisation-level RCC items. Strong to very strong correlations were found between a majority of the team and organisation-level items. Conclusions. Team-level scores were substantially lower when compared to individual and organisational levels. The item 'team leaders that support research' was positively correlated with various organisation-level items, indicating that if the respondent perceived the team leader as a low supporter of research the respondent perceived several organisation items also poorly. As an important stakeholder in enabling research in a health service, organisations should investigate the challenges experienced by team leaders in facilitating research and the support or training they may need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]