Public involvement in service change has been identified as a key facilitator of health care transformation (Foley et al., 2017) but little is known about how health policy influences whether and how organisations involve the public in change processes. This qualitative study compares policy and practice for involving the public in major service changes across the UK's four health systems (England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland). We analysed policy documents, and conducted interviews with officials, stakeholders, NHS staff and public campaigners (total number of interviewees = 47). Involving the public in major service change was acknowledged as a policy challenge in all four systems. Despite ostensible similarities, there were some clear differences between the four health systems' processes for involving patients and the public in major changes to health services. The extent of central Government oversight, the prescriptiveness of Government guidance, the role for intermediary bodies and arrangements for independent scrutiny of contentious decisions all vary. We analyse how health policy in the four systems has used ‘sticks’ and ‘sermons’ to promote particular approaches, and conclude that both policy and the wider system context within which health care organisations try to effect change are significant, and understudied aspect of contemporary practice.

Since 1990, market mechanisms have occurred in the predominantly hierarchical National Health Service (NHS). The Health and Social Care Act 2012 led to concerns that market principles had been irrevocably embedded in the NHS and that the regulators would acquire unwarranted power compared with politicians (known as ‘juridification’). To assess this concern, we analysed regulatory activity in the period from 2015 to 2018. We explored how economic regulation of the NHS had changed in light of the policy turn back to hierarchy in 2014 and the changes in the legislative framework under Public Contracts Regulations 2015. We found the continuing dominance of hierarchical modes of control was reflected in the relative dominance and behaviour of the sector economic regulator. But there had also been a limited degree of juridification involving the courts. Generally, the regulatory decisions were consistent with the 2014 policy shift away from market principles and with the enduring role of hierarchy in the NHS, but the existing legislative regime did allow the incursion of pro market regulatory decision making, and instances of such decisions were identified.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is framed as beneficial for individuals and for the health system. However, little is known about the extent of involvement, or of its impact. Based on data from Sweden, we show that apart from voting in regional elections (76%), more people reported involvement as individual patients (23%) than part of collective activities (5%) or activities relating to a citizen perspective (4%). There was no correlation between how many people participated and the estimated impact – which was generally low. More extensive involvement is thus not linked to the potential to influence decisions. We argue that to achieve the benefits associated with PPI it is crucial to understand more about people's motivation for being involved and what underlies low estimates of impact. This requires a more systematic approach to involvement, how it is evaluated and its results communicated to participants and the society. We also argue that a future challenge for the Swedish health system, and for other similar health systems, is to support long-term collective involvement in the midst of growing individualization of health services and involvement opportunities primarily intended for patients.

In the Dutch health care system, health insurers negotiate with hospitals about the pricing of hospital products in a managed competition framework. In this paper, we study these contract prices that became for the first time publicly available in 2016. The data show substantive price variation between hospitals for the same products, and within a hospital for the same product across insurers. About 27% of the contract prices for a hospital product are at least 20% higher or lower than the average contract price in the market. For about half of the products, the highest and the lowest contract prices across hospitals differ by a factor of three or more. Moreover, hospital product prices do not follow a consistent ranking across hospitals, suggesting substantial cross-subsidization between hospital products. Potential explanations for the large and seemingly random price variation are: (i) different cost pricing methods used by hospitals, (ii) uncertainty due to frequent changes in the hospital payment system, (iii) price adjustments related to negotiated lumpsum payments and (iv) differences in hospital and insurer market power. Several policy options are discussed to reduce variation and increase transparency of hospital prices.

Most hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) provide payments for newly approved technologies. In Germany, they are negotiated between individual hospitals and health insurances. The aim of our study is to assess the functioning of temporary reimbursement mechanisms. We used multilevel logistic regression to examine factors at the hospital and state levels that are associated with agreeing innovation payments. Dependent variable was whether or not a hospital had successfully negotiated innovation payments in 2013 (n = 1532). Using agreement data of the yearly budget negotiations between each German hospital and representatives of the health insurances, the study comprises all German acute hospitals and innovation payments on all diagnoses. In total, 32.9% of the hospitals successfully negotiated innovation payments in 2013. We found that the chance of receiving innovation payments increased if the hospital was located in areas with a high degree of competition and if they were large, had university status and were private for-profit entities. Our study shows an implicit self-controlled selection of hospitals receiving innovation payments. While implicitly encouraging safety of patient care, policy makers should favour a more direct and transparent process of distributing innovation payments in prospective payment systems.

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are used as a policy tool to appraise the clinical value, or cost effectiveness, of new medicines to inform reimbursement decisions in health care. As HTA organisations have been established in different countries, it has become clear that the outcomes of medicine appraisals can vary from country to country, even though the same scientific evidence in the form of randomised controlled trials is available. The extant literature explains such variations with reference to institutional variables and administrative rules. However, little research has been conducted to advance the theoretical understanding of how variations in HTA outcomes might be explained. This paper compares cases of HTA in England and Germany using insights from Kuhn (1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press) and Hall (1993, Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25, 275–296) to demonstrate how policy paradigms can explain the outcomes of HTA processes. The paper finds that HTA outcomes are influenced by a combination of logical issues that require reasoning within a paradigm, and institutional and political issues that speak to the interaction between ideational and interest-based variables. It sets out an approach that advances the theoretical explanation of divergent HTA outcomes, and offers an analytical basis on which to assess current and future policy changes in HTA.

Using quantitative and qualitative research designs, respectively, two studies investigated why countries make different health technology assessment (HTA) drug reimbursement recommendations. Building on these, the objective of this study was to (a) develop a conceptual framework integrating the factors explaining these decisions, (b) explore their relationship and (c) assess if they are congruent, complementary or discrepant. A parallel convergent mixed methods design was used. Countries included in both previous studies were selected (England, Sweden, Scotland and France). A conceptual framework that integrated and organised the factors explaining the decisions from the two studies was developed. Relationships between factors were explored and illustrated through case studies. The framework distinguishes macro-level factors from micro-level ones. Only two of the factors common to both studies were congruent, while two others reached discrepant conclusions (stakeholder input and external review of the evidence processes). The remaining factors identified within one or both studies were complementary. Bringing together these findings contributed to generating a more complete picture of why countries make different HTA recommendations. Results were mostly complementary, explaining and enhancing each other. We conclude that differences often result from a combination of factors, with an important component relating to what occurs during the deliberative process.

We reviewed published evidence on quality improvement in hospitals in the Russian Federation since 2000. We used three data sources: MEDLINE, ‘Rossiiskaia Meditsina’ (Central Scientific Medical Library), and elibrary.ru using specific search terms. No language or study design restrictions were imposed. In total, 1717 articles were identified; 51 met the inclusion criteria and were thematically analysed. Russian legislation, government acts and grey literature were sourced to contextualise identified themes. Since 2010, the Federal Ministry of Health has increasingly sought to improve quality of care, providing additional resources and new initiatives across the health system. These include clinical practice guidelines, pay for performance schemes, electronic medical records, more specialist care, paraclinical care, and quality control systems. Quality of care, increasingly a concern of the Russian government, is said to be improving. Yet most initiatives have rarely been evaluated. This reflects the limited capacity for health services research in Russia. It seems likely that the full potential for improvements in quality of care in Russia is still to be realised.