Browse by title
The book is concluded by noting that the current surge of interest in social wellbeing has echoes of 19th century interest that then became effectively silenced by social pathologism and cultural declinism in much of the 20th century. While there has always been some intermittent interest in wellbeing, now is the time for scholars and practitioners to combine forces to develop much more systematic, interdisciplinary, and comprehensive approaches.
Edited by Marie E. Gispen and Brigit Toebes
Elin M. Oftedal and Lene Foss
This chapter discusses how responsible start-ups are met in the health sector. Through following three companies, Voco, Cora and Medicus, we acquire insight into the world of challenges the entrepreneurs have when they introduce their technology/service to the healthcare sector. Using institutional theory, we look at the regulative, normative and cognitive dimension of the institutional framework. We use the term ‘institutional wall’ to denote a dense network of formal laws and regulation, informal norms and knowledge and beliefs that act as barriers for the entrepreneurs to access the market. We find that while there is a positive development in the regulative dimension: both the regulative and the normative dimension are set up to favour larger companies. The founders’ responses to the cognitive dimension indicate a lack of belief in Norwegian technology and thus tough access to finance.
Jos Boertjens, Johan van Manen, Misja Mikkers and Wolf Sauter
Because the risk of ill health is part of the human condition, there is a universal interest in providing access to high-quality healthcare while controlling the sacrifices that are necessary to obtain it – after all, the funds used for healthcare cannot be allocated to alternative uses. Affordability is therefore an important consideration that is closely linked to access. Quality determines the health value of the treatment provided. Arriving at a social consensus on how to achieve these goals is difficult, however, which in most countries leads to intense debate on healthcare, as the contributions to this book regarding the US, South Africa, Colombia and the Netherlands all illustrate. Unsurprisingly, there is no one particular healthcare system that meets all three of the needs identified above perfectly. Instead, there is a wide variety of such systems, each with different advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs. Hence it is important that data on the problems encountered are collected and analysed, and that learning occurs between different health systems. This is a practical as well as a scientific challenge, because hitherto most studies on healthcare regulation have not taken a comparative perspective based on comparable data. In fact, in many respects, no such data yet exists. This book charts hospital financing across the three dimensions of access, affordability and quality. It does so based on an international comparison spanning four different continents. For the purpose of our project, we have collected 11 country reports, compiled by national experts according to a standard structure. In addition, six thematic chapters are included that explore specific questions. The invited authors include academics and practitioners (primarily, but not exclusively, policymakers).
Jos Boertjens and Mary Guy
In this chapter the authors compare the health care systems of England and the Netherlands with respect to contracting, accountability frameworks and the duty to provide care and access to health care. The objectives of contracting are different in these two countries. While in the Netherlands contracting is envisaged to promote efficiency and quality, contracting in England appears to set a minimum requirement. Under the Dutch system, the insurer must fulfill its duty to provide care. In England it is difficult to hold any party accountable for ensuring that patients receive necessary care. Various types of co-payments and out-of-pocket charges occur in both England and the Netherlands. In both countries personal care budgets exist to put patients in charge of their own budgets.