Purchasing health services abroad: Practices of cross-border contracting and patient mobility in six European countries
Introduction
Cross-border care in the form of patients obtaining treatment outside their country of residence can take various forms in the EU. The focus of this paper is on a specific type of patient mobility – namely when care is planned, purchased by statutory purchasers and delivered outside the country which funds it. Such an approach differs markedly from the case-by-case authorisations foreseen by EU Regulation 1408/71 on the coordination of social security systems and from individuals travelling for care on their own initiative, possibly reimbursed afterwards according to the Treaty-based rights on the free movement of services [1]. As opposed to these frameworks, the origin and procedures of the examined patient mobility are not necessarily rooted in EU legislation but in explicit contractual agreements between purchasers and providers.
‘Planned’ in this sense refers to the non-emergency character of the care, and to the planning which statutory insurers or health authorities undertake when contracting treatments outside the public system. In this way, systems open up to ‘external’ capacity – from providers abroad, and often in parallel from domestic non-public, for-profit providers.
These practices, and the concepts they rely on, are in contrast to the traditionally closed health systems. Since their inception, welfare systems have been constructed on geographical and membership boundaries which demarcate the territorial reach and the contributors/beneficiaries of a system [2]. The principle of territoriality implies that Member States use territorial elements in defining the scope of social security schemes, and when determining the qualifying conditions and the conditions of entitlement to benefits [3]. In terms of access to health services, it implies that in theory only individuals lawfully residing in the national territory can obtain health care from providers also established there [4]. Member States can thus control quality of care, protect the financial sustainability of the national system and ensure adequate planning of health care infrastructure and capacity [4]. While cross-border care takes place outside the domestic borders, contracting allows Member States to achieve these same three objectives even as patients leave the national territory. Cross-border contracting de-territorializes health services delivery but keeps quality, costs and planning under control.
The aim of the article is threefold. Firstly, to clarify the developments which have led national health systems to open up to foreign capacity. Secondly, to systematise the findings on cross-border contractual arrangements and to explain how purchasing and delivering health services ‘outside’ works in practice. The third aim is to identify the incentives behind cross-border contracting as well as its potential implications for systems involved.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
The article is a qualitative study which systematises and analyses the evidence on purchasing planned health care services from foreign suppliers to which patients are sent.
The material used originates from two sources: a study on contracted care in Belgian hospitals, based on in-depth interviews with stakeholders1
Results
We have found material on purchasers engaged in cross-border contracting in Denmark, England, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Norway. Before explaining how purchasing and delivering care outside the system function, the section briefly describes the policy background in which cross-border practices have taken place in the six countries. The national contexts provide clues to the rationales behind contracting.
Discussion
The limitations of the study should be made clear. The article is not exhaustive in terms of descriptions as the amount, quality, completeness and objectivity of data for each case vary. Contracting with foreign and/or for-profit providers is a constantly changing phenomenon not widely described in literature. Its politically or commercially sensitive character adds to the complexities of obtaining material. Some stakeholders decline to share information. For this reason, evidence of Portuguese
Conclusion
In an attempt to diversify providers and increase performance, statutory health purchasers make ‘public use’ of foreign and private health services. Patients travel and are treated within the framework of contractual agreements which allow quality of care, costs and domestic planning mechanisms to be kept in check. These are noteworthy variants of delivering services to a population. Experimenting with ways to purchase and organise care moves away from the idea of health systems being
Acknowledgements
This study would not have been feasible without the cooperation of a long list of people and organisations which contributed to the Belgian case-study [5] and the literature review on patient mobility [6]. We are most grateful for their help and availability. We would also like to thank our reviewers for precious comments, as well as Ms Maria Carlota Vieira and Prof Gilles Dussault, University of Lisbon, for their continuous efforts in contacting Portuguese municipalities, and in translating
References (55)
- et al.
Trading patients – lessons from Scandinavia
Health Policy
(2004) - Palm W, Glinos IA. Enabling patient mobility in the European Union: between free movement and coordination. In:...
The boundaries of welfare – European integration and the new spatial politics of social protection
(2005)The principle of territoriality and the community regulations on social security (Regulations 1408/71 and 574/72)
Common Market Law Review
(1996)Free movement of persons within the European Community. Cross-border access to public benefits
(2003)- et al.
Contracting cross-border care in Belgian hospitals: an analysis of Belgian, Dutch and English stakeholder perspectives
(2005) - et al.
A literature review of cross-border patient mobility in the European Union
(2006) Equality, efficiency, and market fundamentals: the dynamics of international medical-care reform
Journal of Economic Literature
(2002)- et al.
Introduction
- et al.
Market competition in European hospital care
Introduction
The Europeanization of welfare – the domestic impact of intra-European social security
Journal of Common Market Studies
Independent sector treatment centres: evidence so far
BMJ
Sundhed – Suspension af det frie sygehusvalg
Nyhedsbrevet Danske Regioner
The efficacy of rehabilitation for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison between a 4-week rehabilitation programme in a warm and a cold climate
Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology
Cited by (46)
Post-COVID19 strategies to support the health care interactions of U.S. Mexican immigrants and return migrants with the Mexican health system
2023, Journal of Migration and HealthInfluential factors of intercity patient mobility and its network structure in China
2023, CitiesCitation Excerpt :Intercity patient flows, either within (Aggarwal et al., 2018; Beal et al., 2019; Borno et al., 2018; Diaz et al., 2019; Diaz et al., 2020; Jia et al., 2015; Jia et al., 2020b; Kornelsen et al., 2021; Pekala et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2020a) or across (Andritsos & Tang, 2014; Azzopardi-Muscat et al., 2018; Baeten, 2014; Chikanda & Crush, 2019; Glinos et al., 2010a; Glinos et al., 2010b; Hanefeld et al., 2015; Laugesen & Vargas-Bustamante, 2010; Legido-Quigley et al., 2007; Lunt & Mannion, 2014) countries, have recently drawn the attention of public health scholars. Existing studies have investigated mainly the burden and outcome of patient travel (Beal et al., 2019; Borno et al., 2018; Chikanda & Crush, 2019; Diaz et al., 2019; Diaz et al., 2020; Kornelsen et al., 2021; Pekala et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2020a), motivations for such behavior (Aggarwal et al., 2018; Glinos et al., 2010a; Hanefeld et al., 2015; Laugesen & Vargas-Bustamante, 2010; Lunt & Mannion, 2014) and relevant policy issues (Andritsos & Tang, 2014; Azzopardi-Muscat et al., 2018; Baeten, 2014; Glinos et al., 2010b; Jia et al., 2015; Jia et al., 2020b; Legido-Quigley et al., 2007). Recently, a few studies have employed patient mobility big data to analyze intercity patient flows (Wang et al., 2020b; Wang et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2021b; Wang & Wang, 2021).
Cross-border healthcare collaborations in Europe (2007–2017): Moving towards a European Health Union?
2022, Health PolicyCitation Excerpt :On the demand side, drivers do not necessarily coincide, as patients are likely to seek care in another country only when certain conditions apply. The most important ones among them are familiarity with health care systems abroad, lack of availability of domestic healthcare services, (lower) financial costs of healthcare services elsewhere (e.g. in the case of high domestic out-of-pocket payments or low domestic insurance coverage) [6,23,8,24,25,26,27,28], and lack of expertise in one's own country (e.g. on rare diseases). As a major EU study investigating hospital collaborations in border regions has shown, the interests of providers/purchasers do not necessarily correspond with patients’ interests [29,30,21].
Introducing competition in healthcare services: The role of private care and increased patient mobility
2014, European Journal of Operational ResearchHealthcare, borders, and boundaries: Crossborder health markets and the entrepreneurial state
2014, Policy and SocietyCitation Excerpt :EU laws that uphold the freedom for firms to provide services have reinforced the deterritorialization of healthcare in the region (Fererra, 2005), and service provision is increasingly divorced from purchasing in key EU member states. This allows ‘strategic purchasing’ to meet excess demand or create commercial advantage (Glinos, Baeten, & Maarse, 2010). Such purchasing is often carried out by state or public entities, although it may not always be able to overcome political, cultural, and organizational differences (Glinos, Boffin, & Baeten, 2005).