Explore the vast range of titles available.

'Catastrophe Risk Financing in Developing Countries' provides a detailed analysis of the imperfections and inefficiencies that impede the emergence of competitive catastrophe risk markets in developing countries. The book demonstrates how donors and international financial institutions can assist governments in middle- and low-income countries in promoting effective and affordable catastrophe risk financing solutions. The authors present guiding principles on how and when governments, with assistance from donors and international financial institutions, should intervene in catastrophe insurance markets. They also identify key activities to be undertaken by donors and institutions that would allow middle- and low-income countries to develop competitive and cost-effective catastrophe risk financing strategies at both the macro (government) and micro (household) levels. These principles and activities are expected to inform good practices and ensure desirable results in catastrophe insurance projects. 'Catastrophe Risk Financing in Developing Countries' offers valuable advice and guidelines to policy makers and insurance practitioners involved in the development of catastrophe insurance programs in developing countries.

Governments in developing countries have been increasingly involved in the support of commercial agricultural (crop and livestock) insurance programs in recent years. A striking example is China, where, with support (and premium subsidies) from the central and provincial governments, the agricultural insurance market grew dramatically to become the second largest market in the world (after the United States) in 2008. In India and Mexico, weather-based crop insurance has been developed on a large scale to protect farmers against the vagaries of the weather. Many other countries have investigated the feasibility of agricultural insurance, and some have implemented pilot programs. This book aims to inform and update public and private decision makers involved in promoting agricultural insurance about recent developments in agriculture insurance. The literature is heavily biased toward the practice and experience of a few very large public-private programs in Northern America and Europe, which are driven by large public financial subsidies. This book provides decision makers with a framework for developing agricultural insurance. It is based on an analytical review of the rationale for public intervention in agricultural insurance and a detailed comparative analysis of crop and livestock insurance programs provided with and without government support in more than 65 developed and developing countries. The comparative analysis is based on a survey conducted by the World Bank's agricultural insurance team in 2008. Drawing on the survey results, the book identifies some key roles governments can play to support the development of sustainable, affordable, and cost-effective agricultural insurance programs.

Expansion of telehealth insurance coverage is hampered by concerns that such coverage may encourage excessive use and spending. The aim of this paper is to examine whether users of telehealth services rely more on other forms of outpatient care than nonusers, and to estimate the differences in payment rates. We examined claims data from a large national insurer in 2017. We limited our analysis to patients with visits for 3 common diagnoses (N=660,546). We calculated the total number of visits per patient, overall, and by setting, and adjusted for patient- and county-level factors. After multivariable adjustment, telehealth-visit users, compared to nonusers, had 0.44 fewer visits to primary care, 0.11 fewer visits to emergency departments, and 0.17 fewer visits to retail and urgent care. All estimates are statistically significant at P<.001. Average payment rates for telehealth visits were lower than all other settings. These findings suggest that telehealth visits may substitute rather than add to in-person care for some types of care. Our study suggests that telehealth visits may offer an efficient and less costly alternative.

Nonmedical switching is defined as a change in a stable patient's prescribed medication to a clinically distinct, nongeneric alternative for reasons other than lack of clinical response, adverse effects, or poor adherence. Nonmedical switching often results from formulary changes implemented by insurers to lower medication costs. We sought to survey randomly sampled physicians to elicit their opinions regarding insurers' communication about nonmedical switching. We performed an online, cross-sectional survey of licensed, practicing physicians who were >2 years but <30 years out of residency and/or fellowship, who practiced in an internal medicine, family medicine, or specialist setting, spent ≥10% of their work time providing direct patient care, and had received at least 1 request for a nonmedical switch for ≥1 patient in the prior 12 months. The survey was fielded from November to December 2018. We report weighted percent responses categorized from 5- or 7-point Likert scale questions. E-mail invitations were sent to 13,117 randomly sampled physicians, and 1818 opened the e-mail and followed the embedded survey link to participate. Of these, 1010 total physicians (55.5%), 606 primary care and 404 specialists, who treated patients experiencing nonmedical switching in the prior 12 months completed the survey. A few physicians were notified about nonmedical switches by insurers; more frequently physicians learned about them from pharmacies serving their patients. Notification frequently occurred at or after a refill came due. Notification via electronic medical record or insurer letter was less frequent. Few thought that insurers clearly communicated information about alternative medications when a nonmedical switch was required, and most disagreed that insurers provided clear procedures, timelines, and methods to track challenges. Nearly all agreed that insurers should provide supporting documentation or rationale for nonmedical switches and specifics on alternatives. Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that steps to improve communication and physicians' and patients’ ability to navigate nonmedical switches or challenge procedures should be implemented. This survey of primary care and speciality physicians suggests that physicians believe that insurers’ current level of communication regarding nonmedical switching is suboptimal. Respondents suggested that insurers did not optimally communicate information about alternative medications when a nonmedical switch was required and did not provide clear procedures, timelines, and methods to track challenges. A preponderance of physicians agreed that steps to improve physician-insurer communication to aid in the navigation of nonmedical switch and to challenge procedures should be implemented. If not addressed, these identified nonmedical switch communication issues may have a negative effect on achieving the quadruple aim of enhancing patient experience, improving population health, reducing costs, and improving the work life of health care practitioners and their staff.

Diagnostic reasoning is an important topic in General Practitioners’ (GPs) vocational training. Interestingly, research has paid little attention to the content of the cases used in clinical reasoning education. Malpractice claims of diagnostic errors represent cases that impact patients and that reflect potential knowledge gaps and contextual factors. With this study, we aimed to identify and prioritize educational content from a malpractice claims database in order to improve clinical reasoning education in GP training. With input from various experts in clinical reasoning and diagnostic error, we defined five priority criteria that reflect educational relevance. Fifty unique medical conditions from a malpractice claims database were scored on those priority criteria by stakeholders in clinical reasoning education in 2021. Subsequently, we calculated the mean total priority score for each condition. Mean total priority score (min 5–max 25) for all fifty diagnoses was 17,11 with a range from 13,89 to 19,61. We identified and described the fifteen highest scoring diseases (with priority scores ranging from 18,17 to 19,61). The prioritized conditions involved complex common (e.g., cardiovascular diseases, renal insufficiency and cancer), complex rare (e.g., endocarditis, ectopic pregnancy, testicular torsion) and more straightforward common conditions (e.g., tendon rupture/injury, eye infection). The claim cases often demonstrated atypical presentations or complex contextual factors. Including those malpractice cases in GP vocational training could enrich the illness scripts of diseases that are at high risk of errors, which may reduce diagnostic error and related patient harm.

Background Using malpractice claims cases as vignettes is a promising approach for improving clinical reasoning education (CRE), as malpractice claims can provide a variety of content- and context-rich examples. However, the effect on learning of adding information about a malpractice claim, which may evoke a deeper emotional response, is not yet clear. This study examined whether knowing that a diagnostic error resulted in a malpractice claim affects diagnostic accuracy and self-reported confidence in the diagnosis of future cases. Moreover, suitability of using erroneous cases with and without a malpractice claim for CRE, as judged by participants, was evaluated. Methods In the first session of this two-phased, within-subjects experiment, 81 first-year residents of general practice (GP) were exposed to both erroneous cases with (M) and erroneous cases without (NM) malpractice claim information, derived from a malpractice claims database. Participants rated suitability of the cases for CRE on a five-point Likert scale. In the second session, one week later, participants solved four different cases with the same diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy was measured with three questions, scored on a 0–1 scale: (1) What is your next step? (2) What is your differential diagnosis? (3) What is your most probable diagnosis and what is your level of certainty on this? Both subjective suitability and diagnostic accuracy scores were compared between the versions (M and NM) using repeated measures ANOVA. Results There were no differences in diagnostic accuracy parameters (M vs. NM next step: 0.79 vs. 0.77, p  = 0.505; differential diagnosis 0.68 vs. 0.75, p  = 0.072; most probable diagnosis 0.52 vs. 0.57, p  = 0.216) and self-reported confidence (53.7% vs. 55.8% p  = 0.390) of diagnoses previously seen with or without malpractice claim information. Subjective suitability- and complexity scores for the two versions were similar (suitability: 3.68 vs. 3.84, p  = 0.568; complexity 3.71 vs. 3.88, p  = 0.218) and significantly increased for higher education levels for both versions. Conclusion The similar diagnostic accuracy rates between cases studied with or without malpractice claim information suggests both versions are equally effective for CRE in GP training. Residents judged both case versions to be similarly suitable for CRE; both were considered more suitable for advanced than for novice learners.

Specialist groups have often advised health ministers and other decision makers in developing countries on the use of social health insurance (SHI) as a way of mobilizing revenue for health, reforming health sector performance, and providing universal coverage. This book reviews the specific design and implementation challenges facing SHI in low- and middle-income countries and presents case studies on Ghana, Kenya, Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand.