Background
It is a great challenge to provide a sustainable health care that maintain high quality and is available on equal terms for all citizens.
Disinvestment in health care implies that existing health care services/interventions are removed from the publicly funded supply of health care or that they will be restricted in use. Quality improvements are continuously performed and unnecessary, harmful or ineffective services are replaced with new and better ones. This is generally not perceived as disinvestment. With time, however, a situation arises where it will be difficult to find "unnecessary, harmful or ineffective" care. This implies that clear priorities must be set for the provision of care and that evidence based disinvestment will be a necessary component to ensure the quality of care within limited budgets.
The aim of this report on evidence based disinvestment is to describe how this is perceived and performed in Sweden's county councils and regions. We also give a brief overview of international disinvestment initiatives. The concept of disinvestment is illustrated by a number of ongoing or completed disinvestment initiatives and through a tentative framework for disinvestment in a Swedish context. The work has four parts:
- An interview study for mapping disinvestment activities in Sweden
- Case studies of active disinvestment
- An overview of disinvestment initiatives internationally
- A description of disinvestment processes and different types of disinvestment in a schematic framework
Methods
An initial literature search was performed in 2012 as a basis for a minor pilot study and to provide an introduction to the subject. The literature search was supplemented with new search terms in 2013 and 2015. The interviews were conducted by telephone with experts at Sweden's county councils and regions. A questionnaire was constructed to be used as an interview template and to serve as an e-mail survey in case any of our informants preferred this.
Results
In Sweden, open discussions on disinvestment of health care practices began in the early 2000s, which led to several counties starting to sketch on disinvestment policies. Few policies were, however, realized in practice. Organized disinvestment occurs in some counties/regions in the context of more general improvement or prioritization efforts and the term disinvestment is not always used. The majority of our respondents still thought that disinvestment was a significant issue requiring special attention.
An evidence based disinvestment is always active, that is, it includes a conscious decision to stop using, restrict the use of, or withdraw resources from existing healthcare practices. The disinvestment work, however, was in most cases not clearly organized. The most active disinvestment work occurs where there is a priority setting committee or a group for evidence based adoption and disinvestment.
This report describes disinvestment components and sub-processes in a schematic framework. The character of these processes was in large mapped by the interviews. Interview results were then synthesized with information from the literature into a tentative description of evidence based disinvestment. Whatever the causes and goals with disinvestment, the same problems arise and the work follows in large the same steps or sub-processes. Broadly, these sub-processes are:
- identification of disinvestment objects
- choice and preparation/assessment of disinvestment proposals
- decision making
- implementation of decisions and
- follow-up and possible revision of decided disinvestments
One of the sub-processes, that so far received little attention in Sweden, is how disinvestment decisions are implemented in operational health care. We have chosen to develop this in the framework as it seems to be an area on the rise internationally. There is a range of strategies and practical measures to facilitate and accelerate a desired change. This has been thoroughly investigated regarding implementation of new methods. Such strategies are based on different mechanisms to eliminate barriers and utilize facilitators.
To illustrate the results presented in the report we present four cases of disinvestment in a little more detail. These are examples of how practices are identified as disinvestment objects, the preparation of cases, implementation of decisions, and of controversies that might arise. The cases have been selected to show the variation in types of disinvestment objects and the outcomes of disinvestment initiatives.
Disinvestment has gained increased interest internationally in recent years. The problem of rising health care costs is present everywhere in the world and disinvestment is discussed in many countries. Early on, the focus was on disinvestment for greater efficiency. Then the trend turned to re-assessment of old services to be able to make evidence-based disinvestments. This resulted in so-called "low-value-lists" and "do-notdo" recommendations. Today, the focus is on measurable outputs of different disinvestment initiatives and studies have shown that compliance with "low-value-lists" is modest.
Conclusions
There are many indications that the future will call for efficient disinvestment processes to obtain a sustainable health care financing. Our study shows that disinvestment is used both for efficiency reasons and for cost control.
- Most counties/regions are using or have used disinvestment; defined as decisions to withdraw or restrict the use of services/interventions in publicly funded health care.
- The main reasons for disinvestment is the need for: quality improvements, reallocation of resources to new practices, cost control and/or better efficiency.
- We identified two main types of organized disinvestment in Sweden: - evidence based adoption including disinvestment as an integral part, and - proactive identification of disinvestment objects with a subsequent assessment and prioritization of the objects.
- Services that are withdrawn or restricted in use is a mixture of pharmaceuticals, non-pharmaceutical methods and organizational arrangements.
- Many withdrawn services remains available as privately funded options.
- Prioritization principles are often indicative of disinvestment work and evidence-based medicine and health technology assessment are considered as obvious components.
- Important criteria for classification as disinvestment candidates are: - the service/intervention has adverse effects or very little clinical benefit - the service/intervention is not cost effective - the service/intervention is perceived to have negative effects on the organization and/or work environment
- There are also services that have been removed due to ethical considerations on what publicly funded healthcare should cover.
- Today, disinvestment takes place without sufficient openness and citizen involvement in the processes. Documentation of the work, to the extent there is any, is usually not readily accessible.
In order to improve health care quality, and at the same time control rising costs, it will be required that disinvestment is placed on the national agenda. Ethically difficult considerations associated with disinvestment have made it a question hard to tackle for decision makers at the regional political and administrative levels. Conflicting interests may arise between the patient and the caregiver's budgetary commitment. It is not always easy to determine which interventions are medically and socially justified in the individual patient case, which induces ethical dilemmas.
Regardless of the ethical dilemmas and difficulties that arise – and at which organizational level decisions are made – a useful working model will be required for active withdrawal of services from the supply of publicly funded health care. In our study, we have outlined a framework that describes the processes, including medical and economic as well as social and ethical aspects.