
==== Front
J Mark Access Health Policy
J Mark Access Health Policy
jmahp
Journal of Market Access & Health Policy
2001-6689
MDPI

10.3390/jmahp12030021
jmahp-12-00021
Opinion
The Knowledge and Application of Economics in Healthcare in a High-Income Country Today: The Case of Belgium
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6801-9654
Standaert Baudouin 1*
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6734-5367
Vandenberghe Désirée 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1886-745X
Connolly Mark P. 23
Hellings Johan 1
Borissov Borislav Academic Editor
1 Department of Care & Ethics, Faculty of Medicine & Life Sciences, University of Hasselt, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium; desiree.vandenberghe@uhasselt.be (D.V.); johan.hellings@uhasselt.be (J.H.)
2 Global Market Access Solutions (GMAS), Charlotte, NC 28202, USA; mark@gmasoln.com
3 Department of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Public University of Groningen, 9700 AB Groningen, The Netherlands
* Correspondence: baudouin.standaert@skynet.be
04 9 2024
9 2024
12 3 264279
01 6 2024
07 8 2024
26 8 2024
© 2024 by the authors.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by MDPI on behalf of the Market Access Society. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Healthcare is a huge business sector in many countries, focusing on the social function of delivering quality health when people develop illness. The system is essentially financed by public funds based on the solidarity principle. With a large financial outlay, the sector must use economic evaluation methods to achieve better efficiency. The objective of our study was to evaluate and to understand how health economics is used today, taking Belgium as an example of a high-income country. The evaluation started with a historical view of healthcare development and ended with potential projections for its future. A literature review focused on country-specific evaluation reports to identify the health economic methods used, with a search for potential gaps. The first results indicated that Belgium in 2021 devoted 11% of its GDP, 17% of its total tax revenue, and 30% of the national Social Security Fund to health-related activities, totalizing EUR 55.5 billion spending. The main health economic method used was a cost-effectiveness analysis linked to budget impact, assigning reimbursable monetary values to new products becoming available. However, these evaluation methods only impacted at most 20% of the money circulating in healthcare. The remaining 80% was subject to financial regulations (70%) and budgeting (10%), which could use many other techniques of an economic analysis. The evaluation indicated two potentially important changes in health economic use in Belgium. One was an increased focus on budgeting with plans, time frames, and quantified treatment objectives on specific disease problems. Economic models with simulations are very supportive in those settings. The other was the application of constrained optimization methods, which may become the new standard of practice when switching from fee-for-service to pay-per-performance as promoted by value-based healthcare and value-based health management. This economic refocusing to a more constrained approach may help to keep the healthcare system sustainable and affordable in the face of the many future challenges including ageing, climate change, migration, pandemics, logistical limitations, and financial instability.

economic assessment
healthcare
budgeting
financing
value assessment
This research received no external funding.
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Economists study and analyze individual and/or societal behaviour regarding the acquisition and use of limited resources for satisfying needs and wants (also called utilities) in pursuing personal and/or societal end goals [1]. Societal goals could be politically determined, encompassing diverse motivations such as group survival (prevalent in primitive societies), religious or spiritual beliefs, and the contemporary emphasis on welfare [2]. The framework for the realization of welfare is conceived and developed within welfare economics, focusing on production, consumption, and income increases [3,4]. Its paradigm incorporates a mixture of free-market economics, democratic principles, and governmental interventions for those constraints that are difficult to address by a purely free-market approach [5].

The field of economic study seeks to define methodologies for efficiently reaching economic objectives, and is characterized by optimizing output relative to limited input, given the context of diversity in age, sex, race, culture, education, demography, and/or geography [6,7]. Two of the best-known approaches to the economic study are free-market economics and planned economics [8]. The former is structured around the dynamics of a trade market, where supply and demand dictate the optimal price setting of goods and services, depending on their quantity and quality or their perceived value. A planned economy, in contrast, is not evidently dynamic, but is characterized by centralized control that determines what is produced, for whom, by whom, when, and at what price. Planned economics may also achieve societal welfare, but its long-term sustainability as a unique approach for trading may pose challenges [1].

Health economics (HE) emerged as a distinct field from general economics around six decades ago [9]. Its separate development was instigated due to the inadequacy of conventional economic principles in governing healthcare activities effectively. Issues like increasing costs, monopolistic price setting for products and services, and information imbalances between producers and users created distorted market conditions, resulting in disparate winners and losers [10,11]. Within the field of healthcare, modified situations of both free-market and planned economies coexist. They are intertwined, but they evolved independently over time [12]. HE within that context is not to be considered as a monolithic (one-method) application. It encompasses a very diverse approach to specific situations within healthcare [13]. The focus of the analysis presented here is on one country, Belgium, as an example for a high-income country. First, a synthesis of the historical development of healthcare is presented, seen from the perspective of payment allocations. It is important to understand the origin of the current healthcare financial situation. This is followed by a simplified structural presentation of the current healthcare organization for its economic assessment. Finally, different HE methods that should be considered are listed, based on publications in the literature that will help to identify the methods used in different situations. This triad package of basic information (history of payments, current organization of healthcare linked to economic assessment, and HE methods of evaluation) allows us to build an inventory of methods that are or could be applied across the healthcare system today to help with its challenges. The Discussion section considers possible future changes in HE, based on new evolutions expected in healthcare development.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Historical View

The starting point for healthcare development originated from the need to support individuals afflicted with illnesses needing professional medical intervention. This medical support was/is categorized as a social function, given that it is provided to individuals with no income due to their sickness and thereby requires remuneration from public resources for the professional assistance provided. The free-market economy, foundational to welfare development, was unable to equitably regulate the payment for the healthcare services delivered. Consequently, governmental intervention became necessary, leading to the establishment of State Social Security Funds based on the principle of solidarity [14]. This principle should ensure equitable access and remuneration for those in need of medical assistance, contingent upon prior contributions (premiums) made by those individuals as employees and/or employers [15]. The Results Section indicates how the money collected in this way is distributed across the different social support activities for which the government is responsible, based on actual data from Belgium.

2.2. Healthcare Organization for Application of Health Economics

The organizational framework of healthcare as an economic activity can be illustrated through a simple diagram (Figure 1) [16]. As shown in Figure 1, a healthcare organization in a country should have a clear objective to produce quality health (arrow 1) as part of welfare (arrow 2). Having enough finances (arrow 3), the policy can make decisions directed to maximizing the efficiency and quality of the system, promoting equitable access, and sponsoring public health, training, and education, the institutions, and some research and development.

Economic understanding of this structure is to be stratified by economists into a well-known tripartite configuration, encompassing macro-, meso-, and micro-levels [12,17]. This stratification aims to facilitate a detailed understanding of the specific economic analyses that are required at each level, as described further in the Results Section.

Briefly, at the macro-level, healthcare considers a policy or strategic vision, characterized by the overarching financing mechanisms [18]. It also includes the activity of budgeting, which involves the identification of key healthcare challenges, developing a visionary plan, allocating budgetary provisions, and ongoing monitoring of quantified goals to be achieved within pre-specified timelines (Health System Performance Assessment [19]). At the meso (intermediate)-level, the focus shifts to the organization of care provision or supply [20,21]. This tier serves as the link between federal and regional policies with corresponding responsibilities in Belgium. At the micro-level, the intricacies of healthcare demand and its determinants, such as elasticity measurements, come under scrutiny [12]. This tier covers the determination of pricing for novel interventions, including medications, tests, diagnostics, devices, and vaccines [22]. Sometimes called the tactical level, this micro-level analysis is pivotal for comprehending the granular dynamics of healthcare economics and tailoring interventions accordingly.

2.3. Where and How Does HE Intervene?

The use of HE within healthcare extends beyond the conventional application of determining prices of medical goods entering the market [13,23]. The primary method employed here is a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and budget impact analysis (BIA), to calculate the price of a new intervention based on health gain (i.e., its value) and the payer’s willingness to reimburse a unit of additional health gain [24,25,26]. The principle underlying this analysis is “more for more”: increased health gain is related to augmented financial input.

However, the economic issues affecting health and healthcare require much more diverse HE evaluation methods than just CEA and BIA to address distinct aspects of public healthcare resource allocation. Table 1 describes several recognized economic methods applicable to healthcare, categorized based on their focus on value measurement, on the one hand, being market-driven, or a planned economy, on the other hand, that can be split into budgeting considerations, or financing aspects [27]. The list is not exhaustive. The many books that are available on health economics have taken a larger perspective on the use and applications of different health economic methodologies in healthcare [28,29,30,31,32,33]. A specific focus on the three domains indicated in Table 1 has not often been observed in the literature but could be helpful, as explored in the Results Section.

To illustrate the applicability of the methods in Table 1, recently published examples of each method are presented in Appendix A. This should help to demonstrate when and how the different methods have been used. In the Results Section, the proportional distribution of the healthcare money flow in each of the different domains of market value measurement, and planned budgeting and financing, is analyzed for Belgium. The analysis also describes the HE methods commonly applied in each domain and indicates areas that are not yet applied in the system.

3. Results

3.1. Historical Overview

A concise historical overview of HE in Belgium reveals an evolution in parallel with the development of healthcare services, similar to many other high-income countries [34,35,36,37,38,39]. Total healthcare has evolved into a substantial economic sector for the country, not only by providing direct care but also through the production of healthcare resources (pharmaceuticals and devices) for the global market. Following the most recent data collection in the Eurostat Database of 2021, the sector constitutes 11% of the Gross Domestic Product, 17% of the tax revenue, and 30% of the Social Security Fund (EUR 55.5 billion total spent on reimbursed health-related activities), and engages 11% of the active working population in the country [40].

The funds collected by the State Social Security Fund are systematically distributed in Belgium by the National Social Security Office (NSSO) to diverse government departments. Presently, the most significant allocations are directed toward pensions, administered by the Federal Pension Services (FPS) with around 40% of the fund, and the National Institute for Sickness and Disability Insurance (NISDI) with around 30% of the fund for the reimbursement of healthcare services [41,42].

NISDI assumes the responsibility of redistributing the funds obtained from the NSSO, primarily through mutualities or insurance funds. These funds reimburse services performed by healthcare professionals based on predetermined reimbursement schemes agreed upon with the government. An exhaustive number of more than 15,000 distinct services are listed in the NISDI nomenclatura [43].

However, access to medical care in Belgium mandates membership in the recognized health insurance funds (see Appendix B). There are, legally defined, five such funds constituting the group of third-party payers. The concept, rooted in the ideas of Bismarck from Germany in 1875, significantly influences both the supply and demand of healthcare, shaping its evolution over a span of more than 70 years (from after World War II to present) [44]. As described by David Cutler of Harvard University in 2002, health system evolution is comprised of three phases [45]. The first phase focused on incorporating as many individuals as possible into the social insurance system through the mutual insurance companies, facilitating expansive healthcare coverage but lacking oversight on spending and service quality. The subsequent phase involved curtailing the excessive growth and spending. It resulted in resource constraints, prolonged waiting times, and suboptimal service delivery (1970 to 2000). The current period, from 2000 onward, constitutes the third phase, characterized by a pursuit of incentives seeking efficiency in service provision through the identification and active support of potential market forces.

Despite the absence of an explicit free-market scenario in healthcare—for instance, price setting and consumption are not set by free-market rules—the current economic activity of healthcare in Belgium involves a particular interplay between planned economy and market economy principles, such as free choice in the selection of medical care but within a fixed annual budget [46]. Moreover, the historical presence of inactive third-party payers with limited responsibility has the potential to induce financial imbalances, marked by excessive demand (negative moral hazard) and oversupply (supply-induced demand) [12]. However, the utilization of funds collected on the solidarity principle leans towards a planned economy split into financing (money transfer) and budget economy approaches (see Table 1). Consequently, contemporary economic assessment of healthcare in Belgium is perceived as a mix of planned and market economies, applied together but not optimally [41,47].

3.2. The Organization Levels

At the macro-level, financing results in a complex interplay of resource collection and redistribution, orchestrated through entities such as the NISDI and guided by a legal framework with annual consensus among stakeholders. A large part of the finance allocation (35–40%) is for hospital care. The latter has a complex structure of fixed payment per year through the Budget Monetary Fund (BMF) plus a flexible reimbursement depending on the activities performed by the professional healthcare physicians in the hospital unit. Annual evaluations about the financial performance of the hospitals expressed in expenses and profits are presented in the MAHA reports [48]. Economic assessments of comparative efficiency performance between hospital units have been developed using the technique of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) [49,50,51]. This type of evaluation is, however, new for Belgium. DEA is helpful in evaluating whether important deviations in efficiency are observed between hospital units, caused by scale or technical changes in the individual organizations.

Meanwhile, there is currently an interesting change in emphasis within the domain of a planned economy towards budgeting instead of financial or money transfer. Currently, the budgeting approaches in the planned economy cover only a marginal part of the total money circulation in healthcare (see Table 2). Appendix C lists the activities to be performed under this budgetary framework as an example. The identification of those critical issues is often informed by comparative research at a national or regional level that is heavily encouraged by the European Commission, and also by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), playing a critical role in country comparison within market-driven organizations [19,52,53].

At the meso-level, the Flemish region endeavours to formulate strategic hospital plans within networks, aligning with federal directives to optimize hospital bed utilization in their network plans [54]. The meso-level becomes significant as a point of collaborative consultation, facilitating the joint development of essential healthcare services that align with financial considerations.

The micro-level exhibits a pronounced federal responsibility. However, notable asymmetry exists in the federal relationship with the regions concerning pricing mechanisms of specific products and services, such as vaccines and prevention programmes.

Analyzing the monetary flows within the healthcare landscape of Belgium reveals distinct economic approaches, as presented in Table 2. Predominantly financial transactions account for a very substantial proportion (70%), while value-based pricing constitutes a comparatively much smaller share (20%) of the monetary flows [55]. The allocation of funds towards budgeting activities has historically been limited, gaining prominence only recently, commencing in the year 2021 and currently accounting for 10% of monetary flows [56].

The proposed division of the healthcare system into the three economic levels (macro, meso, micro) enables a more nuanced understanding of the role of HE and its corresponding interventions at each level. Table 3 describes specific HE contributions to each tier, highlighting its overarching objective of facilitating more responsible (equitable) and efficient (cost, technical, or allocative) management within the system. However, the ultimate goal of using HE is to maximize the delivery of services towards quality health outcomes while operating within specific constraints, such as available resources, logistics, personnel, and equality of access.

At the macro-level, the effectiveness of the healthcare system is shaped by economic analyses that define the annual co-determination of the cost growth rate, social contributions collected for the NSSO, and out-of-pocket (OOP) contributions or co-payments. Conversely, the health system can shape the meso- and macro-economy through changes in population health resulting in productivity gains (fiscal health modelling (FHM)). These economic interventions are aligned with the characteristics of a financially focused economy, overall and specifically. The economic evaluations play a pivotal role in setting limits on changes in supply (offer) and demand (market economy) by assessing the appropriateness of social contributions and the OOP levels. Budgeting, an essential, newly grounded development in comparative data examination (evidence-based), is gaining prominence. Planned economy approaches therefore offer at the level of finance and budgeting the potential for better control of cost and outcome in specific healthcare challenges.

At the meso-level, HE engages in the study of all supply data as a function of subregional epidemiological analyses (population health and management) [57]. It can help with defining the number of beds needed for hospital care, nursing homes, and mental care. It can facilitate an understanding of local needs and demands for diverse provisions of elderly care and mental healthcare. Economic evaluations at this level aid in determining the most effective financing mechanisms for interventions in both the short and long term, and in the development of population health management [57]. Additionally, HE encourages regulated market competitiveness among the five mutuality funds in Belgium, which may aim to enhance customer loyalty by proposing superior care on advantageous terms, thereby seeking better services at competitive market prices [58].

The micro-level focuses on understanding individual demand and the corresponding supply responses. Key aspects include evaluating the impact of changes in co-payments, income levels, and life expectancy on supply and demand dynamics, expressed through the elasticity ratios of relative changes. HE, as mentioned earlier, is notable for its application of CEA and BIA in pricing new products entering the market [24,32]. This market-based approach aims to ascertain the utilities generated by a new medical product, measured in terms of individual clinical added value, such as the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) for which society is willing to pay a maximum price per unit gained. The micro-level also assesses the economic added value of innovation and prevention over treatment.

In summary, most of the healthcare budget in Belgium, approximately 80%, could be evaluated under the economic guidance of financial and budget planned economic rules. The remaining 20% is assessed using value assessment methods, including CEA and BIA. This distribution of money circulation in the three domains of value assessment, budgeting, and financing indicates that training and education in HE currently has too great a focus on value and places much less emphasis on financing and budgeting [59].

3.3. Challenges to the Sustainability of Healthcare

Examining the evolution of healthcare costs over the past decades reveals a pattern of annual increases occasionally punctuated by spikes, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic [60]. This pattern with fluctuations raises concerns about the future viability and affordability of the healthcare system. The factors contributing to the annual increases are well-known and include increased demand, elevated expectations, an ageing population requiring increased healthcare interventions, and new, more expensive medical technologies for laboratory tests, diagnostics, and pharmaceuticals. The challenge lies in organizing a financial framework capable of managing growth, while ensuring the system’s long-term sustainability and durability [61]. Figure 2 illustrates the projected budgetary escalation of two social support functions (pensions and healthcare) in Belgium from 2019 to 2070, offering a visual depiction of the anticipated challenges in sustaining the healthcare system, particularly if the diminishing workforce still remains the primary source of funding [62].

In managing these challenges, the application of HE emerges as a key tool to inform decision-making. An example is presented in Figure 3, which demonstrates the dynamic relationship between increased investment in healthcare and the resultant health gains [63]. The simulated production function exhibits a non-linear trajectory, indicating that increased investments lead to extended life expectancy, but the associated health gain reaches a peak and then declines as more aged individuals become exposed to age-related diseases that currently lack appropriate treatment, such as cancer and dementia. The graph highlights important areas for future research, such as addressing complex disease burdens in elderly populations.

The challenges confronting the healthcare system extend beyond this financial constraint. Climate change (manifesting as extreme weather conditions), new pandemics, financial instability, migration, and enhanced mental healthcare potentially pose high new hurdles [64]. Moreover, these challenges are interconnected, forming links where the activation of one may increase the impact of others, necessitating an integrated approach to address the multifaceted issues.

4. Discussion

The underutilization of the many HE methods available may be attributed to the absence of awareness, education, and training, limiting their potential to enrich efficiency in overall healthcare management. However, a tremendous improvement has occurred at the federal level in Belgium since the Knowledge Centre of Excellence (KCE) institute was installed and became operational in 2003 [65]. This paper has described the traditional role of HE and its economic interventions, characterized as a sort of cosmetic alteration to the healthcare system. The interventions, such as budgeting and evidence-based implementation protocols, have had limited impact on the fundamental working habits of healthcare professionals. The challenge lies in the fact that these economic measures do not directly influence the core operations of healthcare delivery or address the efficiency of care and its quality from the patient’s perspective.

This realization suggests a re-evaluation of the approach to healthcare, necessitating a shift in focus from input-based evaluations (counting services provided) to output-oriented assessments (performance outcomes) (see Figure 4). The historical lack of precise evaluations of care performance has led to an inherent limitation in achieving effective cost control. In attempting to break through this limitation, a change in thinking emerged from the United States at the beginning of this century, promoting a vision of carrying out what is right and demanded by the patient, at a reasonable price [66]. This revolutionary approach to healthcare has been spearheaded by the Institute of Health Innovation (IHI) in the US, promoting first the Triple followed by the Quadruple and Quintuple Aim, and by Michael Porter’s vision of value-based healthcare (VBHC) [67,68,69,70]. The crux of this paradigm shift lies in refocusing on the patient in care, assessing the outcomes of interventions, evaluating the value of work performed within budget constraints, promoting teamwork, and adhering to evidence-based treatment pathways.

In pursuit of this transformative approach, economic evaluation must evolve beyond the traditional CEA model to embrace constrained optimization (CO). CO entails determining the forms of treatment or combinations of treatments that maximize health gains from the patient’s perspective, considering specific constraints, with a fixed budget or a known budget increase. The DEA method used to evaluate the efficiency of hospital units is in that respect a concrete application of CO. The paradigm shift towards CO is encapsulated in the new economic assessment required for VBHC. While CEA may still be relevant for defining the price of new products, VBHC demands a distinct economic evaluation focusing on optimizing patient care within existing budgetary constraints, irrespective of potential budget increases [71].

The evolution of the Belgian healthcare system over the past seven decades has been remarkable, evolving into a major economic entity sustained by contributions from individuals through earnings and taxes. This system, intricately present in Belgian societal functioning, has historically experienced increasing financial allocations. It is only in the past 15 years that a profound reality has surfaced: the need to evaluate the healthcare system not merely on the inventory of services accomplished, but on the outcomes delivered for individuals and society [71,72].

Remarkably, economic scrutiny in healthcare to date, with CEA methods designed over the past four decades for assessing new interventions, has typically focused on a fraction of the monetary spending on healthcare, approximately 20%. A shift in attention is needed, directed towards enhancing efficiency in the monetary utilization of the remaining 80%, with the use of methods including budget and financial evaluations (see Table 1). This entails a multifaceted approach encompassing cost, technical, and allocative efficiencies, with a renewed emphasis on preventive measures over curative interventions. This indicates the exploration and exploitation of an economy of budgeting, a domain worthy of further investigation.

Moving forward, value-based health management (VBHM) emerges as a compelling incentive, away from the constricting confines of VBHC, which centres too much around care and cure [73]. The shift towards a more inclusive vision, integrating prevention, care, and cure, aligns with the imperative to maintain health support (prevention + care + cure) as an affordable, sustainable, and enduring societal framework. It underscores a holistic approach to HE, with an unwavering commitment to securing the well-being of individuals and the broader community.

What is presented here is not completely new. It is a way of looking at different blocks present in the healthcare system and focusing on specific aspects of the way money circulates in the healthcare system that could be based on value, budget, or finance [74,75]. Each block needs to understand and accept that there are other ways of circulating and appreciating money in the system to obtain durability, sustainability, affordability, and quality care. Working together should help to support longer and healthier survival of people and the healthcare organization.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Carole Nadin (Fleetwith Ltd.) for editorial assistance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.S.; validation, D.V., M.P.C. and J.H.; investigation, B.S. and D.V.; writing—original draft preparation, B.S.; writing—review and editing, B.S., D.V. and M.P.C.; visualization, B.S.; supervision, J.H.; project administration, B.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data presented in the document come from publicly available data sources like Eurostat, NSSO, NISDI.

Conflicts of Interest

Connolly M. holds stocks in Global Market Access Solutions LLC. Authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as a potential conflict of interest.

Appendix A

List of projects and publications following HE evaluations with a different focus on value, budget, or finance:

Value Assessment

Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis [76,77]

Decremental cost-effectiveness analysis [78,79]

Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis [80,81]

Extended cost-effectiveness analysis [82,83]

MCDA/SMAA [84,85,86]

Cost–consequence analysis [87,88]

Cost–impact analysis [89,90]

Tiered pricing [91]

Budget Assessment

Budget impact analysis [92,93]

Cost minimisation [94,95]

Cost–benefit analysis [96,97]

Constrained optimization [98,99,100]

Portfolio management [101,102]

Cobb–Douglas function [103,104]

Return on Investment (ROI) [105,106]

DEA [49,107]

Finance Assessment

Fiscal health modelling cohort [108,109]

Fiscal health modelling—Social Account Matrix (SAM) [110,111]

Poverty trap avoidance [112,113,114]

Risk sharing agreement (RSA) [115,116,117,118]

Macro-Economics [119,120,121]

Production function [122]

Appendix B

Mutualities and Other Third-Party Payers in Belgium

In Belgium, health insurance is needed to obtain access to the professional medical services. It costs around EUR 10 per month. Being insured allows for visits to a general practitioner (GP) and hospital, and obtaining prescribed medicine. Health insurance requires joining an insurance institution, by completing a registration form from the institution selected, which may be the Auxiliary Health and Disability Insurance Fund (HZIV) or one of the following five health insurance funds:Christian mutuality;

Neutral mutuality health insurance fund;

Socialist mutualities (Bond Moyson, De Voorzorg);

Liberal mutuality health insurance fund;

Independent health insurance funds (Onafhankelijk Ziekenfonds OZ, Securex, Partena, Helan).

A mutuality health insurance fund is not legally obliged to register everyone (risk selection is therefore possible), but the Auxiliary Fund can never refuse a registration. The Auxiliary Fund does not require payment of a membership fee.

Appendix C

Seven transversal projects (https://www.riziv.fgov.be/nl/thema-s/financiering-van-de-verzekering/budget-van-de-ziekteverzekering-meerjarig-en-dynamisch-vanaf-2022 (accessed on 20 February 2024)):A preliminary care pathway for patients at risk of diabetes and follow-up of patients with diabetes;

A childhood obesity care pathway;

A multidisciplinary perinatal (prenatal and postnatal) care pathway for vulnerable women;

A care pathway around the patient pre- and post-abdominal organ transplantation;

Investing in psychiatric care with special focus on somatic care and young people with psychiatric problems;

Reducing readmissions (new hospitalization periods) by rolling out better pulmonary rehabilitation and increasing the quality of life of the patients concerned by improving their functional capabilities;

Various secondary and tertiary prevention first-line projects, including post-COVID-19 ones.

Figure 1 The organizational diagram of HC development in a country.

Figure 2 The estimated budget increase in the social support functions of pensions and HC in Belgium in the future (2019–2070).

Figure 3 The productivity curve between health gain and investment [63].

Figure 4 Refocusing HC development.

jmahp-12-00021-t001_Table 1 Table 1 Methods of economic evaluation applicable to HC.

Market	Planned	
Value	Budget	Finance	
Incremental CEA	BIA	FHM cohort	
Decremental CEA	Cost minimisation	FHM-SAM	
Distributional CEA	CBA	Poverty trap avoidance	
Extended CEA	CO	RSA	
MCDA/SMAA	Portfolio management	Macro-economics	
Cost–consequence analysis	Cobb–Douglas function	Production functions	
Cost–impact analysis	ROI and SROI		
Tiered and volume pricing	DEA		
BIA: budget impact analysis; CBA: cost–benefit analysis; CEA: cost-effectiveness analysis; CO: constrained optimization; FHM: fiscal health modelling; MCDA: multicriteria decision-making analysis; ROI: return on investment; RSA: risk sharing agreement; SAM: social accounting matrix; SMAA: stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis; SROI: social return on investment; DEA: data envelopment analysis.

jmahp-12-00021-t002_Table 2 Table 2 Economic handling in HC in Belgium.

Overall	Planned-Driven	Market-Driven	
What?	Finance	Budget	Value	
Definition	Reimbursable and registered medical activities	Action plan, time schedule, goals, budget scheme	Value-based pricing	
How much?	70%	10%	20%	
Methods?	Fiscal health modelling
Macro-economics	Budget impact +
constrained optimization
Cobb–Douglas function
DEA	Cost-effectiveness analysis
Cost–impact analysis	
Influencer?	Hospital network	Europe—OECD	PPF to PPP	
Logic?	Constrained budget	More for more	
Who?	NSSO insurance payers	Producers	
DEA, Data Envelop Analysis; NSSO, National Social Security Office; OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; PPF: Pay Per Fee; PPP: Pay Per Performance.

jmahp-12-00021-t003_Table 3 Table 3 Current and potential economic activities in HC organizations at the three levels of macro, meso, and micro.

Level	Application	Activity	Type of Economic Approach	Method	
Macro or Strategic	Financial	Defining the annual growth rate; nomenclatura; BFM	Financial economy	FHM; macro-economy; production function	
Contribution	OOP + social	Financial + market economy	FHM; SAM	
Budgeting	Plan, scheme, target (quantified)	Budget economy	CO; portfolio; Cobb–Douglas; DEA	
Meso or Offer/Supply	Network Regions	Hospitalisations; health subregions; population health	Budget economy	Cost–consequence; DEA; CO	
Offer Limitations	Grants/regional taxations	Financial economy	Modeling + simulations	
Mutualities/Insurance	Regulated competition	Market economy	FHM	
Micro or Tactical	Demand/Offer	Elasticities	Market economy	Budget/outcome; CO	
HTA	Pricing	Market economy	CEA-BIA; CBA; RSA; CIA; FHM	
HTA: Health Technology Assessment; BFM: Budget van de Financiële Middelen (FRB); OOP: Out of Pocket; FHM: Fiscal Health Modelling; SAM: Social Accounting Matrix; CO: Constrained Optimization; CEA: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; BIA: Budget Impact Analysis; CBA: Cost–Benefit Analysis; RSA: Risk Sharing Agreement; CIA: Cost–Impact Analysis; DEA: Data Envelop Analysis.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
==== Refs
References

1. Skidelsky R. What’s Wrong with Economics Yale University Press New Haven, CT, USA 2020
2. Dasgupta P. Economics, a Very Short Introduction Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 2007 Volume 156 172
3. Barr N. Economics of the Welfare State 5th ed. Oxford university Press Oxford, UK 2012 385
4. Varian H. Micro-Economic Analysis 3rd ed. W.W. Norton & Company New York, NY, USA 1992 506
5. Mill A. Economics 101 Adams Media Avon, MA, USA 2016
6. Chang H.-J. Edible Economcs, a Hungry Economist Explains the World Allen Lane, Penguin Books London, UK 2022 192
7. Allen R. Global Economic History, a Very Short Introduction Oxfor University Press Oxford, UK 2011 Volume 282 170
8. Pen J. van Gemerden L. Macro-Economie, Wat We Weten en Wat Wij Niet Weten Aula, Het Spectrum Utrecht, The Netherlands Antwerpen, Belgium 1980
9. Folland S.G.A. STano M. The Economics of Health and Health Care 8th ed. Alexander D. Pearson Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA 2017
10. Arrow K. Uncertainty and welfare economics of medical care Am. Econ. Rev. 1963 53 941 973
11. Muurinen J.M. Demand for health: A generalised Grossman model J. Health Econ. 1982 1 5 28 10.1016/0167-6296(82)90019-4 10263949
12. Schut E. Varkevisser M. Economie van de Gezondheidszorg Bohn Stafleu van Loghum Houten, The Netherlands 2016 438
13. Standaert B. Sauboin C. DeAntonio R. Marijam A. Gomez J. Varghese L. Zhang S. How to assess for the full economic value of vaccines? From past to present, drawing lessons for the future J. Mark. Access. Health Policy 2020 8 1719588 10.1080/20016689.2020.1719588 32128075
14. Maes J. Uw Sociale Zekerheid in Gevaar Drukkerij EPO Berchem, Belgium 2010
15. Deleeck H. De Architectuur van de Welvaartsstaat Opnieuw Bekeken ACCO Leuven, Belgium 2009
16. Culyer A.J. Newhouse J.P. Introduction: The state and scope of health economics Handbook of Health Economics Elsevier Science Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2000 890
17. Kotsopoulos N. Connolly M.P. Is the gap between micro- and macroeconomic assessments in health care well understood? The case of vaccination and potential remedies J. Mark. Access. Health Policy 2014 2 23897 10.3402/jmahp.v2.23897 27226842
18. Tulchinsky T. Varavikova E. Health financing: The macroeconomic level The New Public Health Elsevier Inc Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2014 592 607
19. Papanicolas I. Rajan D. Karanikolos M. Soucat A. Figueras J. Health System Performance Assessment: A Framework for Policy Analysis Health Policy Series 57 World Health Organisation Geneva, Switzerland 2022
20. De Maeseneer J. Galle A. Belgium’s Healthcare System: The Way Forward to Address the Challenges of the 21st Century Comment on “Integration or Fragmentation of Health Care? Examining Policies and Politics in a Belgian Case Study” Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 2023 12 7070 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7070 35297240
21. Schokkaert E. van de Voorde C. Het Belgisch Systeem van Gezondheidszorg. Meer Bevoegdheden Voor de Gemeenschappen/Gewesten? Of Voor de Ziekenfondsen? Re-Bel Initiative Brussels, Belgium 2011
22. Bleichrodt H. Koopmanschap M. Economische evaluatie Economie van de Gezondheidszorg Schut E. Varkevisser M. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum Houten, The Netherlands 2016 324 355
23. Baumol W. The Cost of Disease Yale University Press New Haven, CT, USA 2012 250
24. Drummond M.S.M. Claxton K. Stoddart G. Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes 4th ed. Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 2015
25. Annemans L. Gezondheidseconomie voor Niet-Economen Academia Press Gent, Belgium 2007 102
26. Cleemput I. Neyt M. Van de Sande S. Thiry N. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses: Second edition Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) Brussels, Belgium 2012
27. Standaert B. Rappuoli R. 3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines? J. Mark. Access. Health Policy 2017 5 1336044 10.1080/20016689.2017.1336044 29785253
28. MCPake B. Normand C. Health Economics, an International Perspective Routledge Taylor & Francis Group London, UK New York, NY, USA 2008 285
29. Palmer G. Ho M. Health Economics, a Critical & Global Analysis Palgrave MacMillan Hampshire, UK 2008 303
30. Sloan F. Hsieh C. Health Economics 2nd ed. The MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA 2016 775
31. Phelps C. Health Economics 6th ed. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group New York, NY, USA London, UK 2018 481
32. Neumann P. Sanders G. Russell L. Siegel J. Ganiats T. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine Oxford University Press New York, NY, USA 2017 470
33. Bhattacharya J. Hyde T. Tu P. Health Economics Bloomsbury Academic London, UK New York, NY, USA Dublin, Ireland 2022 525
34. Griffin S. The History of Medicine and Organized Healthcare in America. 2020 Available online: https://www.griffinbenefits.com/blog/history-of-healthcare (accessed on 17 February 2024)
35. Schokkaert E. De Gezondheidszorg in Evolutie: Uitdagingen en Keuzes Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten Brussels, Belgium 2016
36. Bynum W. The History of Medicine, a Very Whort Introduction Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 2008 Volume 191 169
37. Berridge V. Public Health, a Very Short Introduction Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 2016 Volume 482 138
38. Annemans L. Crott R. Economische en sociale aspecten van de Belgische Gezondheidszorg Belgisch Instituut voor Gezondheidseconomie (BIGE) Brussels, Belgium 1998 275
39. Torfs K. Bussels J. Kurz X. Annemans L. Inleiding tot de Economische Evaluatie van Gezondheidszorgen Astra Pharmaceuticals Brussels, Belgium 1993 118
40. Planbureau F. Economische Begroting 2024-Economische Vooruitzichten 2025–2029 van Februari 2024 Instituut voor Nationale Rekeningen Brussels, Belgium 2024
41. Gerkens S. Merkur S. Belgium: Health System Review Health Syst. Transit. 2020 22 1 237
42. Samyn P. Alles Wat je Altijd al Wilde Weten over de Sociale Zekerheid Federale Overheidsdienst Brussels, Belgium 2024
43. Riziv I. Nomenclatuur van de Geneeskundige Verstrekkingen. 2023 Available online: https://www.riziv.fgov.be/nl/nomenclatuur (accessed on 17 February 2024)
44. Cremer H. Pestieau P. Social insurance competition between Bismarck and Beveridge J. Urban Econ. 2003 54 181 196 10.1016/S0094-1190(03)00042-1
45. Cutler D. Equality, efficiency, and market fundamentals. The dynamics of international medical-care reform J. Econ. Lit. 2002 60 881 906 10.1257/jel.40.3.881
46. Schokkaert E. Guillaume J. van de Voorde C. Risk adjustment in Belgium: Why and how to introduce socioeconomic variables in health plan payment Risk Adjustment, Risk Sharing and Premium Regulation in Health Insurance Markets McGuire T. Elsevier, Academic Press Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2018 209 234
47. Belgium.be. Beschrijving van het Belgische Gezondheidssyteem, naar een Gezond België Available online: https://www.gezondbelgie.be/nl/hit (accessed on 20 February 2024)
48. Bank B. Analyse MAHA de 2022 avec un premier aperçu pour 2023 Rapports MAHA Belfius Brussels, Belgium 2023
49. Hollingsworth B. Parkin D. Efficiency and productivity change in the English National Health Service: Can data envelopment analysis provide a robust and useful measure? J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2003 8 230 236 10.1258/135581903322403308 14596758
50. Plasschaert B. Efficiency in Flemish Hospitals: A DEA Approach Master’s Thesis Faculty of Economy & Business Administration University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium 2018
51. Dohmen P. van Ineveld M. Markus A. van der Hagen L. van de Klundert J. Does competition improve hospital performance: A DEA based evaluation from the Netherlands Eur. J. Health Econ. 2023 24 999 1017 10.1007/s10198-022-01529-8 36192512
52. OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies België, Landenprofiel Gezondheid 2017 OECD Paris, France 2017
53. OECD Health at a Glance 2021 OECD Paris, France 2021
54. Ramaekers D. Key Data in Healthcare General Hospitals Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and ENvironment Brussels, Belgium 2024 40
55. Collin B. MORSE Report RIZIV-INAMI Brussels, Belgium 2023
56. Justaert M. Kirsch A. Meerjarig Begrotingstraject voor de Verzekering voor Geneeskundige Verzorging 2022–2024 RIZIV Brussels, Belgium 2022
57. Kanavos P. Vogelsang M. Haig M. Kolovou V. Challenges for health systems seeking to embrace virtual health care for population health Eur. J. Health Econ. 2022 23 1079 1083 10.1007/s10198-022-01503-4 35921018
58. Varkevisser M. Schut E. Marktordening in de gezondheidszorg Economie van de Gezondheidszorg Schut E. Varkevisser M. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum Houten, The Netherlands 2016 358 398
59. Garrison L.P. Jr. Kamal-Bahl S. Towse A. Toward a Broader Concept of Value: Identifying and Defining Elements for an Expanded Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Value Health 2017 20 213 216 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.005 28237197
60. KCE IMA CES-KUL FPB Evolutie van de Uitgaven voor Gezondheidszorg Federaal Kenniscentrum voor Gezondheidszorg Brussels, Belgium 2005
61. Jeurissen P. Maarse H. Tanke M. Betaalbare Zorg Sdu Den Haag, The Netherlands 2018 445
62. Van Gompel J.D.P. Jaarlijks Verslag, Studiecommissie voor de Vergrijzing Federaal Planbureau Brussel, Belgium 2021
63. Schut E. Varkevisser M. Productie van gezondheidszorg Economie van de Gezondheidszorg Bohn Stafleu van Loghum Houten, The Netherlands 2016 235 271
64. Raworth K. Doughnut Economics Penguin Random House London, UK 2017 356
65. Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg (KCE). 2003 Available online: https://socialsecurity.belgium.be/nl/netwerk/federaal-kenniscentrum-voor-de-gezondheidszorg-kce (accessed on 20 February 2024)
66. Martin L. Nelson E. Rakover J. Chose A. Whole System Measures 2.0: A Compass for Health System Leaders Institute for healthcare Improevement Cambridge, MA, USA 2016
67. Porter M.E. Olmsted Teisberg E. Redefining Health Care, Creating Value-Based Competition on Results Harvard Business School Press Boston, Massachusetts Boston, MA, USA 2006
68. Moriates C. Arora V. Shah N. Understanding Value-Based Healthcare McGraw-Hill Education New York, NY, USA 2015 402
69. Nundy S. Cooper L.A. Mate K.S. The Quintuple Aim for Health Care Improvement: A New Imperative to Advance Health Equity JAMA 2022 327 521 522 10.1001/jama.2021.25181 35061006
70. Katz G. Implementing Value-Based Health Care in Europe, Handbook for Pioneers EIT Health Munich, Germany 2020
71. Porter M.E. What is value in health care? N. Engl. J. Med. 2010 363 2477 2481 10.1056/NEJMp1011024 21142528
72. Sermeus W. Vleugels A. Patiëntgestuurde Organisatie Kluwer Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands 2010
73. Klop G. Rutte A. Value-Based Healthcare: Het Antwoord op Onze Toekositge Zorguitdagingen de Zin en Onzin van VBHC Vandaag Met Aanbevelingen voor Morgen Vintura Utrecht, The Netherlands 2021
74. Sermeus W. Management en Beleid in de Gezondheidszorg Learn A. Acco CV Leuven, Belgium 2022
75. Blank R.H. Burau V. Kuhlmann E. Comparative Health Policy 5th ed. Palgrave London, UK 2018 370
76. Vandenberghe D. Simulating lifestyle and medical interventions to prevent type-2 diabetes: An economic evaluation for Belgium Eur. J. Health Econ. 2022 23 237 248 10.1007/s10198-021-01362-5 34390431
77. Standaert B. Parez N. Tehard B. Colin X. Detournay B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination against rotavirus with RIX4414 in France Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2008 6 199 216 10.1007/BF03256134 19382820
78. Darlington M. Scarica R. Chavez-Pacheco X. Segar L.B. Durand-Zaleski I. Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review Front. Pharmacol. 2022 13 1025326 10.3389/fphar.2022.1025326 36545305
79. Sacristan J.A. How to Assess the Value of Low-Value Care BMC Health Serv. Res. 2020 20 1000 10.1186/s12913-020-05825-y 33138809
80. Cookson R. Griffin S. Norheim O.F. Culyer A.J. Chalkidou K. Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comes of Age Value Health 2021 24 118 120 10.1016/j.jval.2020.10.001 33431145
81. Asaria M. Griffin S. Cookson R. Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial Med. Decis. Mak. 2016 36 8 19 10.1177/0272989X15583266
82. Verguet S. Kim J.J. Jamison D.T. Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Policy Assessment: A Tutorial Pharmacoeconomics 2016 34 913 923 10.1007/s40273-016-0414-z 27374172
83. Verguet S. Olson Z.D. Babigumira J.B. Desalegn D. Johansson K.A. Kruk M.E. Levin C.E. Nugent R.A. Pecenka C. Shrime M.G. Health gains and financial risk protection afforded by public financing of selected interventions in Ethiopia: An extended cost-effectiveness analysis Lancet Glob. Health 2015 3 e288 e296 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70346-8 25889470
84. Frazao T.D.C. Camilo D.G.G. Cabral E.L.S. Souza R.P. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: A systematic review of the main characteristics and methodological steps BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2018 18 90 10.1186/s12911-018-0663-1 30382826
85. Lahdelma R. Salminen P. Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA) Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science Ehrgott M. Figueira J. Greco S. Springer Boston, MA, USA 2010
86. Lagravinese R. Liberati P. Resce G. Exploring health outcomes by stochastic multicriteira acceptability analysis: Anapplication to Italion regions Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2019 274 1168 1179 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.009
87. Mauskopf J.A. Paul J.E. Grant D.M. Stergachis A. The Role of Cost—Consequence Analysis in Healthcare Decision—Making PharmacoEconomics 1998 13 277 288 10.2165/00019053-199813030-00002 10178653
88. Jeong S. Ohr S.O. Cleasby P. Barrett T. Davey R. Deeming S. A cost-consequence analysis of normalised advance care planning practices among people with chronic diseases in hospital and community settings BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021 21 729 10.1186/s12913-021-06749-x 34301254
89. Hanquet G. Valenciano M. Simondon F. Moren A. Vaccine effects and impact of vaccination programmes in post-licensure studies Vaccine 2013 31 5634 5642 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.07.006 23856332
90. Standaert B. The economic value of rotavirus vaccination when optimally implemented in a high-income country Vaccines 2023 11 917 10.3390/vaccines11050917 37243021
91. Moradpour J. Zhang W. Grootendorst P. Anis A.H. Hollis A. Modeling Tiered Pricing Frameworks: A Simulation Approach Value Health 2023 26 351 358 10.1016/j.jval.2022.11.003 36396022
92. Mauskopf J. Earnshaw S.R. Brogan A. Wolowacz S. Brodtkorb T.-H. Budget-Impact Analysis of Health Care Interventions, a Practical Guide Adis Cham, Switzerland 2017 224p
93. Ghabri S. Mauskopf J. The use of budget impact analysis in the economic evaluation of new medicines in Australia, England, France and the United States: Relationship to cost-effectiveness analysis and methodological challenges Eur. J. Health Econ. 2018 19 173 175 10.1007/s10198-017-0933-3 29032482
94. Briggs A.H. O’Brien B.J. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ. 2001 10 179 184 10.1002/hec.584 11252048
95. Duenas A. Cost-Minimization Analysis Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine Gellman M.D. Turner J.R. Springer New York, NY, USA 2013 516
96. Brent R.J. Cost-Benefit Analysis versus Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a Societal Perspective in Healthcare Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023 20 4637 10.3390/ijerph20054637 36901658
97. Johannesson M. Jonsson B. Economic evaluation in health care: Is there a role for cost-benefit analysis? Health Policy 1991 17 1 23 10.1016/0168-8510(91)90114-D 10113574
98. Crown W. Buyukkaramikli N. Thokala P. Morton A. Sir M.Y. Marshall D.A. Tosh J. Padula W.V. Ijzerman M.J. Wong P.K. Constrained Optimization Methods in Health Services Research-An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR Optimization Methods Emerging Good Practices Task Force Value Health 2017 20 310 319 10.1016/j.jval.2017.01.013 28292475
99. Demarteau N. Breuer T. Standaert B. Selecting a mix of prevention strategies against cervical cancer for maximum efficiency with an optimization program Pharmacoeconomics 2012 30 337 353 10.2165/11591560-000000000-00000 22409292
100. Kapoor R. Standaert B. Pezalla E.J. Demarteau N. Sutton K. Tichy E. Bungey G. Arnetorp S. Bergenheim K. Darroch-Thompson D. Identification of an Optimal COVID-19 Booster Allocation Strategy to Minimize Hospital Bed-Days with a Fixed Healthcare Budget Vaccines 2023 11 377 10.3390/vaccines11020377 36851254
101. Varghese L. Puteh S.E.W. Schecroun N. Jahis R. Van Vlaenderen I. Standaert B.A. Applying a Constrained Optimization Portfolio Model to Aid Prioritization of Public Health Interventions in Malaysia Value Health Reg. Issues 2020 21 172 180 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.11.001 32044690
102. Standaert B. Schecroun N. Ethgen O. Topachevskyi O. Morioka Y. Van Vlaenderen I. Optimising the introduction of multiple childhood vaccines in Japan: A model proposing the introduction sequence achieving the highest health gains Health Policy 2017 121 1303 1312 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.08.010 29079394
103. Dort T. Schecroun N. Standaert B. Improving the Hospital Quality of Care during Winter Periods by Optimizing Budget Allocation Between Rotavirus Vaccination and Bed Expansion Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2018 16 123 132 10.1007/s40258-017-0362-6 29159785
104. Reyes-Santias F. Cordova-Arevalo O. Rivo-Lopez E. Using flexible regression models for calculating hospital’s production functions BMC Health Serv. Res. 2020 20 641 10.1186/s12913-020-05465-2 32650764
105. Thusini S. Milenova M. Nahabedian N. Grey B. Soukup T. Chua K.-C. Henderson C. Correction: The development of the concept of return-on-investment from large-scale quality improvement programmes in healthcare: An integrative systematic literature review BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022 22 1567 10.1186/s12913-022-08978-0 36550524
106. Thusini S. Milenova M. Nahabedian N. Grey B. Soukup T. Chua K.-C. Henderson C. The development of the concept of return-on-investment from large-scale quality improvement programmes in healthcare: An integrative systematic literature review BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022 22 1492 36476622
107. Hollingsworth B. Peacock S. Efficiency Measurement in Health and Health Care 1st ed. Routledge International Studies in Health Economics Routledge London, Uk 2008 172p
108. van der Schans S. Schöttler M.H. van der Schans J. Connolly M.P. Postma M.J. Boersma C. Investing in the Prevention of Communicable Disease Outbreaks: Fiscal Health Modelling-The Tool of Choice for Assessing Public Finance Sustainability Vaccines 2023 11 823 10.3390/vaccines11040823 37112735
109. Connolly M.P. Kotsopoulos N. Postma M.J. Bhatt A. The Fiscal Consequences Attributed to Changes in Morbidity and Mortality Linked to Investments in Health Care: A Government Perspective Analytic Framework Value Health 2017 20 273 277 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.018 28237208
110. Kotsopoulos N. Haitsma G. Connolly M.P. Standaert B. Estimating the money flow in the economy attributed to rotavirus disease and vaccination in the Netherlands using a Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) framework Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2019 20 603 612 10.1080/14737167.2020.1693269 31755345
111. Standaert B. Sauboin C. Leclerc Q.J. Connolly M.P. Comparing the Analysis and Results of a Modified Social Accounting Matrix Framework with Conventional Methods of Reporting Indirect Non-Medical Costs Pharmacoeconomics 2021 39 257 269 10.1007/s40273-020-00978-4 33236330
112. Kraay A. McKenzie D. Do poverty traps exist? Assessing the evidence J. Econ. Perspect. 2014 28 127 148 10.1257/jep.28.3.127
113. Matsuyama K. Poverty traps Economic Growth Durlauf S.N. Blume L.E. Palgrave Macmillan UK London, UK 2010 215 221
114. Saccone D. Migheli M. Free to escape? Economic freedoms, growth and poverty traps Rev. Dev. Econ. 2022 26 1518 1554 10.1111/rode.12868
115. Terlinden A. Aissaoui A. Ethgen O. Insurance-based risk-sharing agreements J. Pharm. Policy Pract. 2015 8 P22 10.1186/2052-3211-8-S1-P22
116. Kim A.E. Choi D.H. Chang J. Kim S.H. Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements (PBRSA): Is it a Solution to Increase Bang for the Buck for Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Strategy for Our Nation and Around the World? Clin. Drug Investig. 2020 40 1107 1113 10.1007/s40261-020-00972-w
117. Garrison L.P. Jr. Towse A. Briggs A. de Pouvourville G. Grueger J. Mohr P.E. Severens J.H. Siviero P. Sleeper M. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: Report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force Value Health 2013 16 703 719 10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.011 23947963
118. Gonçalves F.R. Santos S. Silva C. Sousa G. Risk-sharing agreements, present and future Ecancermedicalscience 2018 12 823 10.3332/ecancer.2018.823 29743943
119. Rutten M. Reed G. A comparative analysis of some policy options to reduce rationing in the UK’s NHS: Lessons from a general equilibrium model incorporating positive health effects J. Health Econ. 2009 28 221 233 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.10.002 19062116
120. Breeze P.R. Squires H. Ennis K. Meier P. Hayes K. Lomax N. Shiell A. Kee F. de Vocht F. O’flaherty M. Guidance on the use of complex systems models for economic evaluations of public health interventions Health Econ. 2023 32 1603 1625 10.1002/hec.4681 37081811
121. Hafner M. Yerushalmi E. Andersson F.L. Burtea T. Partially different? The importance of general equilibrium in health economic evaluations: An application to nocturia Health Econ. 2023 32 654 674 10.1002/hec.4638 36424887
122. Sielska A. Nojszewska E. Production function for modeling hospital activities. The case of Polish county hospitals PLoS ONE 2022 17 e0268350 10.1371/journal.pone.0268350 35551295
