Explore the vast range of titles available.

Financial risk protection is a key component of universal health coverage (UHC), which is defined as access to all needed quality health services without financial hardship. As part of the PLOS Medicine Collection on measurement of UHC, the aim of this paper is to examine and to compare and contrast existing measures of financial risk protection. The paper presents the rationale behind the methodologies for measuring financial risk protection and how this relates to UHC as well as some empirical examples of the types of measures. Additionally, the specific challenges related to monitoring inequalities in financial risk protection are discussed. The paper then goes on to examine and document the practical challenges associated with measurement of financial risk protection. This paper summarizes current thinking on the area of financial risk protection, provides novel insights, and suggests future developments that could be valuable in the context of monitoring progress towards UHC.

Enthusiasm for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs) continues but at variable pace across countries. Our objective was to identify and characterize publicly available cases and related trends for these arrangements. We performed a review of PBRSAs from 1993 to 2016 using the University of Washington PBRSA Database. Arrangements were categorized according to a previously published taxonomy. Macro-level trends were identified related to the timing of adoption, countries involved, types of arrangements, and disease areas. Our search yielded 437 arrangements. Among these, 183 (41.9%) were categorized as currently active, while 58.1% have expired. Five main types of arrangements have been identified, namely coverage with evidence development (149 cases, 34.1%), performance-linked reimbursement (104 cases, 23.8%), conditional treatment continuation (78 cases, 17.8%), financial or utilization (71 cases, 16.2%), and hybrid schemes with multiple components (35 cases, 8.0%). The pace of adoption varies across countries but has renewed an upward trend after a lull in 2012/2013. Conditions in the USA may be changing toward a more favorable environment of PBRSAs. Interest in PBRSAs remains high, suggesting they are a viable coverage and reimbursement mechanism for a wide range of medical products.

The financial crisis illustrated the need for a functional understanding of systemic risk in strongly interconnected financial structures. Dynamic processes on complex networks being intrinsically difficult to model analytically, most recent studies of this problem have relied on numerical simulations. Here we report analytical results in a network model of interbank lending based on directly relevant financial parameters, such as interest rates and leverage ratios. We obtain a closed-form formula for the \"critical degree\" (the number of creditors per bank below which an individual shock can propagate throughout the network), and relate failures distributions to network topologies, in particular scalefree ones. Our criterion for the onset of contagion turns out to be isomorphic to the condition for cooperation to evolve on graphs and social networks, as recently formulated in evolutionary game theory. This remarkable connection supports recent calls for a methodological rapprochement between finance and ecology.

This article examines performance-based risk-sharing agreements for pharmaceuticals from a theoretical economic perspective. We position these agreements as a form of coverage with evidence development. New performance-based risk sharing could produce a more efficient market equilibrium, achieved by adjustment of the price post-launch to reflect outcomes combined with a new approach to the post-launch costs of evidence collection. For this to happen, the party best able to manage or to bear specific risks must do so. Willingness to bear risk will depend not only on ability to manage it, but on the degree of risk aversion. We identify three related frameworks that provide relevant insights: value of information, real option theory and money-back guarantees. We identify four categories of risk sharing: budget impact, price discounting, outcomes uncertainty and subgroup uncertainty. We conclude that a value of information/real option framework is likely to be the most helpful approach for understanding the costs and benefits of risk sharing. There are a number of factors that are likely to be crucial in determining if performance-based or risk-sharing agreements are efficient and likely to become more important in the future: (i) the cost and practicality of post-launch evidence collection relative to pre-launch; (ii) the feasibility of coverage with evidence development without a pre-agreed contract as to how the evidence will be used to adjust price, revenues or use, in which uncertainty around the pay-off to additional research will reduce the incentive for the manufacturer to collect the information; (iii) the difficulty of writing and policing risk-sharing agreements; (iv) the degree of risk aversion (and therefore opportunity to trade) on the part of payers and manufacturers; and (v) the extent of transferability of data from one country setting to another to support coverage with evidence development in a risk-sharing framework. There is no doubt that — in principle — risk sharing can provide manufacturers and payers additional real options that increase overall efficiency. Given the lack of empirical evidence on the success of schemes already agreed and on the issues we set out above, it is too early to tell if the recent surge of interest in these arrangements is likely to be a trend or only a fad.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) reformed the individual health insurance market. Because insurers can no longer vary their offers of coverage based on applicants' health status, the ACA established a risk adjustment program to equalize health-related cost differences across plans. The ACA also established a temporary reinsurance program to subsidize high-cost claims. To assess the impact of these programs, we compared revenues to claims costs for insurers in the individual market during the first two years of ACA implementation (2014 and 2015), before and after the inclusion of risk adjustment and reinsurance payments. Before these payments were included, for the 30 percent of insurers with the highest claims costs, claims (not including administrative expenses) exceeded premium revenues by $90-$397 per enrollee per month. The effect was reversed after these payments were included, with revenues exceeding claims costs by $0-$49 per month. The risk adjustment and reinsurance programs were relatively well targeted in the first two years. While there is ongoing discussion regarding the future of the ACA, our findings can shed light on how risk-sharing programs can address risk selection among insurers-a pervasive issue in all health insurance markets.

IntroductionTo progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), countries will need to define a health benefits package of services free at the point of use. Financial risk protection is a core component of UHC and should therefore be considered a key dimension of health benefits packages. Allocative efficiency modelling tools can support national analytical capacity to inform an evidence-based selection of services, but none are currently able to estimate financial risk protection. A review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection can facilitate their inclusion in modelling tools so that the latter can become more relevant to national decision making in light of UHC.Methods and analysisThis protocol proposes to conduct a scoping review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection and assess their potential to inform the selection of services in a health benefits package. The proposed review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley and the subsequent recommendations made by Levac et al. Several databases will be systematically searched including: (1) PubMed; (2) Scopus; (3) Web of Science and (4) Google Scholar. Grey literature will also be scanned, and the bibliography of all selected studies will be hand searched. Following the selection of studies according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, key characteristics will be collected from the studies using a data extraction tool. Key characteristics will include the type of method used, geographical region of focus and application to specific services or packages. The extracted data will then be charted, collated, reported and summarised using descriptive statistics, a thematic analysis and graphical presentations.Ethics and disseminationThe scoping review proposed in this protocol does not require ethical approval. The final results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and shared with key stakeholders.

Our objective was to identify and characterize publicly available cases and related trends for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs). We performed a review of PBRSAs over the past 20 years (1993–2013) using available databases and reports from colleagues and healthcare experts. These were categorized according to a previously published taxonomy of scheme types and assessed in terms of the underlying product and market attributes for each scheme. Macro-level trends were identified related to the timing of scheme adoption, countries involved, types of arrangements, and product and market factors. Our search yielded 148 arrangements. From this set, 65 arrangements included a coverage with an evidence development component, 20 included a conditional treatment continuation component, 54 included a performance-linked reimbursement component, and 42 included a financial utilization component. Each type of scheme addresses fundamental uncertainties that exist when products enter the market. The pace of adoption appears to be slowing, but new countries continue to implement PBRSAs. Over this 20-year period, there has been a consistent movement toward arrangements that minimize administrative burden. In conclusion, the pace of PBRSA adoption appears to be slowing but still has traction in many health systems. These remain a viable coverage and reimbursement mechanism for a wide range of medical products. The long-term viability and growth of these arrangements will rest in the ability of the parties to develop mutually beneficial arrangements that entail minimal administrative burden in their development and implementation.

Background. Current principles of cost-effectiveness analysis emphasize the rank ordering of programs by expected economic return (eg, quality-adjusted life-years gained per dollar expended). This criterion ignores the variance associated with the cost-effectiveness of a program, yet variance is a common measure of risk when financial investment options are appraised. Variation in health care program return is likely to be a criterion of program selection for health care managers with fixed budgets and outcome performance targets. Methods. Characterizing health care resource allocation as a risky investment problem, we show how concepts of portfolio analysis from financial economics can be adopted as a conceptual framework for presenting cost-effectiveness data from multiple programs as mean-variance data. Results. Two specific propositions emerge: (1) the current convention of ranking programs by expected return is a special case of the portfolio selection problem in which the decision maker is assumed to be indifferent to risk, and (2) for risk-averse decision makers, the degree of joint risk or covariation in cost-effectiveness between programs will create incentives to diversify an investment portfolio. Conclusions. The conventional normative assumption of risk neutrality for social-level public investment decisions does not apply to a large number of health care resource allocation decisions in which health care managers seek to maximize returns subject to budget constraints and performance targets. Portfolio theory offers a useful framework for studying mean-variance tradeoffs in cost-effectiveness and offers some positive predictions (and explanations) of actual decision making in the health care sector.

Different forms of physician payment result in different levels of financial risk for health care payers and providers, and can affect clinical decision making and the cost of care. Shared savings programs reward providers for holding spending below specific targets, thus introducing a level of financial accountability not present in strictly volume-based payment models, such as fee-for-service. Here we examine the design and application of shared savings formulas across a range of actual programs. We also present a more detailed description of one particular shared savings program-the Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative-focusing on key trade-offs between payers and providers that eventually led to agreement on specific aspects of the program. We conclude with principles for the design of future shared savings arrangements and consideration of issues that will confront decision makers as these efforts mature and expand. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]