Search

Current crises have highlighted the importance of integrating research, politics and practice to work on solutions for complex social problems. In recent years, policy deliberation fora, policy pilots and policy labs have increasingly been deployed to mobilise science to produce solutions, help create popular support and guide implementation of policies addressing major public policy problems. Yet, we know little about how these approaches manage to transcend the boundaries between research, politics and practice. By systematically comparing policy deliberation fora, policy pilots and policy labs, this paper explores their mechanisms of boundary spanning including relationship and trust building, knowledge translation and developing solutions. We situate our analysis in healthcare policy and climate change policy in Germany, two contrasting policy fields that share a perpetual and escalating sense of crisis. Our findings suggest that deliberation fora, policy pilots and policy labs address different dilemmas of policymaking, namely the idea dilemma, the implementation dilemma and the legitimacy dilemma. All three approaches reduce wicked problems to a manageable scale, by grounding them in local decision-making, reducing their scope or reducing the problem analytically. We argue that despite their ambition to modernise democratic practices, unless they are institutionally well embedded, their effects are likely to be small scale, local and temporary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the role of scientific evidence in informing health policy decisions in Germany, using minimum volumes policy as a case study. It argues that scientific evidence was used strategically at various stages of the policy process both by individual corporatist actors and by the Federal Joint Committee as the regulator. Minimum volumes regulation was inspired by scientific evidence suggesting a positive relationship between service volume and patient outcomes for complex surgical interventions. Federal legislation was introduced in 2002 to delegate the selection of services and the setting of volumes to corporatist decision makers. Yet, despite being represented in the Federal Joint Committee, hospitals affected by its decisions took the Committee to court to seek legal redress and prevent policy implementation. Evidence has been key to support, and challenge, decisions about minimum volumes, including in court. The analysis of the role of scientific evidence in minimum volumes regulation in Germany highlights the dynamic relationship between evidence use and the political and institutional context of health policy making, which in this case is characterized by the legislative nature of policy making, corporatism, and the role of the judiciary in reviewing policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the involvement of ministries of health in making health service coverage decisions in Denmark, England, France and Germany. The study aims to inform debate in England about the feasibility of reducing perceived ministerial and bureaucratic ‘interference’ in decisions affecting the National Health Service, based on interviews with senior government officials and other health system stakeholders. Ministries of health differ in their involvement in health system governance and coverage decisions (‘the benefits package’), reflecting differences in institutional arrangements. In all four countries, organizations at arm's length or independent from government are either involved in providing technical advice to the ministry of health or have been mandated to take these decisions themselves. However, ministries of health occasionally intervene in the decision-making process or ignore the advice of these organizations. The Department of Health in England is not an aberrant case, at least in relation to coverage decisions. Indeed, ministries of health in Denmark and France play a larger role in making these decisions. Public pressure, often amplified by the media, is a shared reason for ministerial and ministry involvement in all four countries. This dynamic may thus limit the feasibility of attempts to further separate the NHS from both the Department of Health and wider political pressures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Germany and Chile, substitutive private health insurance has been shaped by its co-existence with statutory social health insurance. Despite differences in the way choice is available to users in the health insurance regimes of Chile and Germany, the way in which each country has managed choice between private health insurance and statutory social health insurance provides a unique opportunity to comparatively assess the consequences of such an arrangement that has been previously underexamined. Methods: We conducted a Most Similar Systems Design comparative policy analysis of the co-occurring private health insurance and statutory social health insurance systems in Germany and Chile. We describe and review the origins and development of the German and Chilean health care insurance systems with an emphasis on the substitutive co-existence between private health insurance and statutory social health insurance. We provide a critique of the market performance of the private health insurance regime in each country followed by a comparative assessment of the impact of private health insurance on financial protection, equity, and risk segmentation. Results: Segmentation of insurance markets in both Germany and Chile has had significant consequences for equity, fairness, and financial protection. Due to market failures in health insurance and differences in the regulatory frameworks governing public and private insurers, the choice of public or private coverage has produced strong incentives for private insurers to select for risks, compromising equity in health care funding, heightening the financial risk borne by public insurers and lowering incentives for private insurers to operate efficiently. Conclusions: The degree of conflict arising from the substitutive parallel private health insurance system and the statutory social health insurance system varies between Germany and Chile, though policy goals remain similar. Recent reforms in both countries have attempted to improve the financial protection of the privately insured through regulation; nevertheless, concerns about risk segmentation remain largely unresolved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health technology assessment is frequently credited with making difficult resource allocation decisions in health care fairer, more rational and more transparent. In Germany, a constitutional 'right to health' allows patients to challenge decisions by sickness funds to withhold reimbursement of treatment excluded from public funding because of insufficient evidence of effectiveness. The ability to litigate was qualified by the Constitutional Court in its 2005 'Nikolaus decision' that sets out criteria to be applied to these cases. Treatment must be made available if (1) the condition is life-threatening, (2) no alternative treatment is available and (3) there is an indication that the treatment could benefit the patient. This paper examines how courts struggled to apply these criteria based on an analysis of cases of patients who sought treatment for cancer between 2005 and 2015, and explores the implications of applying a constitutional 'right to health' to treatment decisions.

Objectives: With markets and competition dominating much of the debate on health care reform, health care planning has received little scholarly attention in recent years. Yet in many high-income countries, governments have continued to plan some elements of their health care systems. We use a new framework for analysing health care planning organised around the dimensions of 'vision', 'governance' and 'intelligence' to assess the approach in two deliberately contrasting countries, Germany and New Zealand., Methods: A review of the literature on health care planning in general and specifically in Germany and New Zealand, supported by key participant interviews., Results: Planning in both countries largely reflects the different institutional arrangements of their wider health systems. Planning in Germany is fragmented, in part due to federalism and corporatism, with separate approaches in different health care sectors and regions. In contrast, New Zealand's NHS-style health system favours a more hierarchical, integrated approach, with clear lines of accountability, and central government capacity to define objectives and monitor developments. Both countries find it difficult to use planning to align demand for and supply of health care though New Zealand makes some use of population needs assessments to support this process while these are currently absent in Germany., Conclusions: While it remains challenging to compare health care systems that are institutionally very different, this new framework for analysing their approaches to planning draws attention to their advantages and disadvantages. It also generates an agenda for future research to improve our understanding of the role and effectiveness of different forms of planning versus, and in combination with, other policy tools to relating health care supply and demand., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)