InterQuality WP4 workshop findings Anna Zawada, WP4 reporter

Timelines of WP4 (from prof. G. Pignataro presentation) TASK Comparative analysis of European reimbursement systems for hospital care 4.2 Prospective payment systems and characteristics of health care systems 4.3 A highly decentralized country as natural experiment: Italy 4.4 Replication of the analysis in the other European countries 4.5 Policy analysis Report1 Report2 Report1

Timing We have discussed overlaps and reasons for timing of tasks 1-4 (their result should be incorporated in common report) and agree that corrections are needed. These corrections should be communicate and discussed with SDU & UY – WP4 partners

Cooperation with WP1 & WP2 WP4 expectations according to WP1 results: –To establish definitions on the field of prospective hospital payment systems –The review of literature on prospective hospital payment systems and establishing different mechanism and incentives –To be in touch to inform about WP4 needs and to be informed on progression of WP1 works WP4 expectations according to WP2 results –WP4 has an experience with effectiveness indicators for hospital systems –WP4 needs information on quality indicators as soon as possible to plan data collection (surveys?); indicators should be adequate for Italian, Danish & English systems WP4 leader will provide health care provision characteristics as the result of task 4.2

Cooperation inside WP4 Contribution of IQ partners: 4.1 – SDU & UY – description of their hospital payment systems 4.2 SDU, UY, UI – discussion on results (matrix) 4.3 SDU, UY – consensus on methodology of analysis; collecting data for analysis 4.4 – SDU, UY – analysis for Denmark, England respectively 4.5 – SDU, UY – comparative analysis, discussion on draft results It seems crutial to achieve consensus on common methodology issues as soon as possible (needed for comparisons on the base of common core indicators) – WP4 leader will propose in advance and discuss with partners the plan of meetings (e- meetins, direct meetings needed)

Shared web site: –Literature (grey literature) found as important for project partners should be published –Interim results should be published –We see the need of having blog or discussion forum for ongoing activities Dissemination –WP4 leader will provide the list of Italian institutios to be informed on project achievements (final, but may be some interim results too – to be discussed) Shared resources/dissemination

In the discussion we have found out that in Itlay there are mechanisms by which the results of the project may be incoraporated in the system (as an advice or reccomendation, providing a political will) Future use of project achievements

Main conclusions for project activities The consensus is strongly needed on the borders between the scopes of WPs activities (eg. hospital care vs outpatient care provided in hospitals); any overlapping should be determined and propose as a field of cooperation rather than doublig work. Organizational rules of cooperation with WP1 and WP2 are strongly needed: how other work packages may inform about their needs, comment on ongiong work, setting priorities

Thank you for your attention Anna Zawada