What The United States Could Learn From Israel About Improving The Quality Of Health Care (original) (raw)
Related papers
Adherence to standards of care by health maintenance organizations in Israel and the USA
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2011
Background. The health-care systems in the USA and Israel differ in organization, financing and expenditure levels. However, managed care organizations play an important role in both countries, and a comparison of the performance of their community-based health plans could inform policymakers about ways to improve the quality of care.
Mirror, mirror on the wall: an update on the quality of American health care …
The …
This report is based on two surveys of patients: the first was conducted in 2004 among a nationally representative sample of adults in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States; the second was conducted in 2005 among a sample of adults with health problems in the same five nations and Germany. It ranks patients' ratings of various dimensions of their health care, according to the Institute of Medicine's framework for quality. The U.S. system ranked first on measures of effectiveness but ranked last on other dimensions of quality. It performed particularly poorly in terms of providing care equitably, safely, efficiently, or in a patient-centered manner. For all countries, responses indicate room for improvement. Yet, the other five countries spend considerably less on health care per person and as a percent of gross domestic product than the United States. Support for this research was provided by The Commonwealth Fund. The views presented here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Commonwealth Fund or its directors, officers, or staff. This and other Fund publications are online at www.cmwf.org. To learn more about new publications when they become available, visit the Fund's Web site and register to receive e-mail alerts. Commonwealth Fund pub. no. 915.
Community healthcare in Israel: quality indicators 2007-2009
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 2012
Background: The National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel (QICH) was developed to provide policy makers and consumers with information on the quality of community healthcare in Israel. In what follows we present the most recent results of the QICH indicator set for 2009 and an examination of changes that have occurred since 2007.
This report is based on two surveys of patients: the first was conducted in 2004 among a nationally representative sample of adults in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States; the second was conducted in 2005 among a sample of adults with health problems in the same five nations and Germany. It ranks patients' ratings of various dimensions of their health care, according to the Institute of Medicine's framework for quality. The U.S. system ranked first on measures of effectiveness but ranked last on other dimensions of quality. It performed particularly poorly in terms of providing care equitably, safely, efficiently, or in a patient-centered manner. For all countries, responses indicate room for improvement. Yet, the other five countries spend considerably less on health care per person and as a percent of gross domestic product than the United States. Support for this research was provided by The Commonwealth Fund. The views presented here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Commonwealth Fund or its directors, officers, or staff. This and other Fund publications are online at www.cmwf.org. To learn more about new publications when they become available, visit the Fund's Web site and register to receive e-mail alerts. Commonwealth Fund pub. no. 915.
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 2022
Background Denmark and Israel both have highly rated and well-performing healthcare systems with marked differences in funding and organization of primary healthcare. Although better population health outcomes are seen in Israel, Denmark has a substantially higher healthcare expenditure. This has caused Danish policy makers to take an interest in Israeli community care organization. Consequently, we aim to provide a more detailed insight into differences between the two countries’ healthcare organization and cost, as well as health outcomes. Methods A comparative analysis combining data from OECD, WHO, and official sources. World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) statistics were used, and national official sources were procured from the two healthcare systems. Literature searches were performed in areas relevant to expenditure and outcome. Data were compared on health care expenditure and selected outcome measures. Expend...
Quality of Health Care in the United States: A Chartbook
2002
This Chartbook was developed with the hope of filling that gap by creating an authoritative but usable resource to translate what is most important about quality into a format that interested constituencies can easily understand for their decision-making and to provide a platform for public discussion. Our goal is not to create another academic report on quality but rather a tool to educate the public and policymakers on the state of health care quality in the U.S. We have systematically selected a representative range of quality data presented through graphs and narrative to "tell the story" of the problems and successes, and, most importantly, the opportunities to improve health care for the benefit of Americans.
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research
Background The quality of healthcare in Israel is considered “high”, and this achievement is due to the structure and organization of the healthcare system. The goal of the present review is to describe the major achievements and challenges of quality improvement in the Israeli healthcare system. Body In recent years, the Ministry of Health has made major strides in increasing the public’s access to comparative data on quality, finances and patient satisfaction. Several mechanisms at multiple levels help promote quality improvement and patient safety. These include legislation, financial incentives, and national programs for quality indicators, patient experience, patient safety, prevention and control of infection and accreditation. Over the years, improvements in quality indicators, infection prevention and patient satisfaction can be demonstrated, but other fields show little change, if at all. Challenges and barriers include reluctance by unions, inconsistent and unreliable flow...