Bulgaria : Improving Quality and Sustainability of the Health System

Bulgaria has undertaken several significant health sector reforms during the past decade, but a large unfinished policy agenda remains. Compared to other EU countries, the share of out-of-pocket spending is significantly higher in Bulgaria, while government spending on health is relatively low. Various indicators of reported public satisfaction with the health system in Bulgaria are frequently the lowest in the EU. The hospital sector has seen rapid growth in recent years, putting the sustainability of the system in doubt and crowding out expenditures on more pressing priorities such as primary health care and the reimbursement of cost-effective drugs. Contrary to the imperative of improving health system efficiency, in recent years the Bulgarian hospital sector has grown in number of facilities, total number of hospitalizations, and the budget share dedicated to inpatient services. Each of these indicators is out of line with European standards. The primary health care system is well established but does not live up to its potential to provide efficient, high-quality care. Spending on primary health care is low, referral rates to higher levels of care are excessive, and the payment method does not provide adequate incentives for improved service provision. New by-laws on pharmaceutical policy and a new positive drug list mark a step forward, but important risks remain. The new drug list includes many new and expensive drugs, but the previous practice of using waiting lists to ration drug access in response to fixed budgets is no longer being implemented. As a result the new drug list poses a threat to the NHIF drug budget in 2009 which was originally programmed to be flat. The future direction of the national health insurance system needs to be clarified with reference to the key lessons emerging from the broad international experience with insurance system reform. In the short-term, protect health spending to mitigate the impact on the poor; and stabilize the drug budget during the final months of 2009, for example by considering a re-introduction of waiting lists for certain high-cost drugs and ensuring that adequate funds are available for nationally procured drugs. In the medium-term, initiate hospital sector restructuring in line with the master plan; and consider changing the financial incentives for hospitals, for example by enabling the NHIF to selectively contract with hospitals and to determine their budgets on the basis of case mix and projected service volume using the more accurate diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) instead of the current Clinical Care Pathways(CCPs); Focus on measures to improve the quality of services provided by strengthening the instruments of licensing and accreditation, for example through the establishment of an independent entity responsible for these functions; creating a link between hospital payment and information about the quality of their services; and reviewing the Clinical Care Pathways in light of up to date, international evidence on cost effective treatment protocols.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: World Bank
Language:English
en_US
Published: Washington, DC 2009-09
Subjects:ACUTE CARE, ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS, ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, AGING, ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES, AMBULATORY SURGERY, BUDGET ALLOCATION, BUDGET CEILINGS, BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, BUDGET PROCESS, CANCER, CAPITATION, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, CIRCULATORY SYSTEM, CLINICAL CARE, CONTRIBUTION RATE, CONTRIBUTION RATES, CORRECTIVE ACTION, CROWDING, DEATH RATE, DIAGNOSIS, DISEASES, DOCTORS, DRUG LIST, DRUGS, EARLY DETECTION, ECONOMIC GROWTH, EXPENDITURES, FEE SCHEDULES, FEE-FOR-SERVICE, FINANCIAL INCENTIVES, GENERAL PRACTITIONERS, HEALTH CARE SERVICES, HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, HEALTH EXPENDITURE, HEALTH EXPENDITURES, HEALTH FINANCING, HEALTH FOR ALL, HEALTH INDICATORS, HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM, HEALTH INTERVENTIONS, HEALTH OUTCOMES, HEALTH REFORM, HEALTH RESOURCES, HEALTH SECTOR, HEALTH SECTOR REFORM, HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH SPENDING, HEALTH STATUS, HEALTH SYSTEM, HEALTH SYSTEM EFFICIENCY, HOME CARE, HOSPITAL, HOSPITAL BEDS, HOSPITAL BUDGETS, HOSPITAL CAPACITY, HOSPITAL CARE, HOSPITAL FINANCING, HOSPITAL SECTOR, HOSPITAL STAFF, HOSPITALS, HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE, INCOME, LABOR FORCE, LAWS, LIFE EXPECTANCY, LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH, LIVING STANDARDS, LONG-TERM CARE, MARKETING, MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, MEDICAL CARE, MORTALITY, NATIONAL HEALTH, NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE FUND, PATIENT, PATIENT CARE, PATIENTS, PHARMACEUTICAL EXPENDITURES, PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR, PHYSICIAN, PHYSICIANS, POCKET PAYMENTS, POPULATION GROUPS, PRIMARY CARE, PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS, PRIMARY CARE SECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CARE, PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, PRIVATE HOSPITALS, PROGRESS, QUALITY CARE, QUALITY OF CARE, QUALITY OF SERVICES, QUALITY SERVICES, REFERRALS, REIMBURSEMENT RATES, RESPECT, RISK FACTORS, SERVICE PROVISION, SOCIAL HEALTH INSURANCE, SOCIAL SERVICES, SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, SURGERY, TRANSPORTATION, TREATMENT SERVICES, VISITS,
Online Access:http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2009/09/16280970/bulgaria-improving-quality-sustainability-health-system
https://hdl.handle.net/10986/12541
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!