Public-Private Integrated Partnerships Demonstrate The Potential To Improve Health Care Access, Quality, And Efficiency
Napo Pharmaceuticals, San Francisco, California, USA.Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.97). 08/2011; 30(8):1498-507. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0461
Around the world, publicly owned and run health services face challenges. In poor countries in particular, health services are characterized by such problems as inadequate infrastructure and equipment, frequent shortages of medicines and supplies, and low quality of care. Increasingly, both developed- and developing-country governments are embracing public-private partnerships to harness private financing and expertise to achieve public policy goals. An innovative form of these partnerships is the public-private integrated partnership, which goes a step further than more common hospital building and maintenance arrangements, by combining infrastructure renewal with delivery of clinical services. We describe the benefits and risks inherent in such integrated partnerships and present three case studies that demonstrate innovative design. We conclude that these partnerships have the potential to improve access, quality, and efficiency in health care. More such partnerships should be launched and rigorously evaluated, and their lessons should be widely shared to guide policy makers in the effective use of this model.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: The present study was conducted to scrutinize Public- Private Partnership (PPP) models in public hospitals of different countries based on performance indicators in order to se-lect appropriated models for Iran hospitals. Methods: In this mixed (quantitative-qualitative) study, systematic review and expert panel has been done to identify varied models of PPP as well as performance indicators. In the second step we prioritized performance indicator and PPP models based on selected performance indicators by Analytical Hierarchy process (AHP) technique. The data were analyzed by Excel 2007 and Expert Choice11 software's. Results: In quality - effectiveness area, indicators like the rate of hospital infections (100%), hospital accidents prevalence rate (73%), pure rate of hospital mortality (63%), patient satisfaction percentage (53%), in accessibility equity area indicators such as average inpatient waiting time (100%) and average outpatient waiting time (74%), and in financial - efficiency area, indicators including average length of stay (100%), bed occupation ratio (99%), specific income to total cost ratio (97%) have been chosen to be the most key performance indicators. In the pri¬oritization of the PPP models clinical outsourcing, management, privatization, BOO (build, own, operate) and non-clinical outsourcing models, achieved high priority for various performance in¬dicator areas. Conclusion: This study had been provided the most common PPP options in the field of public hospitals and had gathered suitable evidences from experts for choosing appropriate PPP option for public hospitals. Effect of private sector presence in public hospital performance, based on which PPP options undertaken, will be different.01/2012; 2(2):251-64. DOI:10.5681/hpp.2012.031
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Private sector healthcare delivery in low- and middle-income countries is sometimes argued to be more efficient, accountable, and sustainable than public sector delivery. Conversely, the public sector is often regarded as providing more equitable and evidence-based care. We performed a systematic review of research studies investigating the performance of private and public sector delivery in low- and middle-income countries. Peer-reviewed studies including case studies, meta-analyses, reviews, and case-control analyses, as well as reports published by non-governmental organizations and international agencies, were systematically collected through large database searches, filtered through methodological inclusion criteria, and organized into six World Health Organization health system themes: accessibility and responsiveness; quality; outcomes; accountability, transparency, and regulation; fairness and equity; and efficiency. Of 1,178 potentially relevant unique citations, data were obtained from 102 articles describing studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Comparative cohort and cross-sectional studies suggested that providers in the private sector more frequently violated medical standards of practice and had poorer patient outcomes, but had greater reported timeliness and hospitality to patients. Reported efficiency tended to be lower in the private than in the public sector, resulting in part from perverse incentives for unnecessary testing and treatment. Public sector services experienced more limited availability of equipment, medications, and trained healthcare workers. When the definition of "private sector" included unlicensed and uncertified providers such as drug shop owners, most patients appeared to access care in the private sector; however, when unlicensed healthcare providers were excluded from the analysis, the majority of people accessed public sector care. "Competitive dynamics" for funding appeared between the two sectors, such that public funds and personnel were redirected to private sector development, followed by reductions in public sector service budgets and staff. Studies evaluated in this systematic review do not support the claim that the private sector is usually more efficient, accountable, or medically effective than the public sector; however, the public sector appears frequently to lack timeliness and hospitality towards patients.PLoS Medicine 06/2012; 9(6):e1001244. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001244 · 14.43 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Most quality improvement (QI) activities in developing countries, established with funds from external donors, are focused on specific diseases or outreach programs, such as family planning or child survival. District hospitals in developing countries serve as the primary entry point for patients with surgical problems in developing countries, yet little is known about the extent to which formal QI activities for surgical services are present in these settings or the perceptions of hospital staff about the barriers to improving quality in this setting. This study aimed to document surgical QI efforts at district hospitals and perceived barriers to improving quality in a developing country-Ghana. It also provides a summary of the existing published scientific literature concerning surgical QI in developing countries. A survey team visited 10 government district hospitals in Ghana, one in each of Ghana's 10 regions. The number and type of QI activities (surgical and nonsurgical) at these district hospitals and the perspectives of hospital staff regarding the steps required to improve the quality of surgical services in their facility were recorded. Of the 10 hospitals assessed, nine reported having some type of QI activity, ranging from satisfaction surveys to assessing quality of infection prevention. Only one hospital reported having QI activity addressing surgical care. To improve the quality of surgical care, seven hospitals reported the need for trained specialists in surgery, obstetrics, and gynecology. Six cited the need for an appropriately equipped operating theater and recovery ward. The primary barrier to achieving these recommendations, cited by 70 % of the hospitals, was the inability to recruit and retain qualified specialists with surgical skills. For Ghana to improve significantly the quality of surgical care provided in its district hospitals, greater emphasis is needed for continuous, systematic QI monitoring and for solving the problems identified. Increasing the number of appropriately trained surgical care providers is essential to strengthen the quality of surgical services in district hospitals. These findings likely apply to other resource-limited countries as well. Increased attention to improving the quality of surgical services at district hospitals in developing countries is urgently needed.World Journal of Surgery 07/2013; 37(11). DOI:10.1007/s00268-013-2169-4 · 2.64 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.