
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0310799
PONE-D-24-04936
Research Article
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Facilities
Hospitals
Social Sciences
Economics
Finance
Social Sciences
Economics
Health Economics
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Economics
People and Places
Population Groupings
Professions
Medical Personnel
Nurses
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Providers
Nurses
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Facilities
Hospitals
Intensive Care Units
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Providers
Allied Health Care Professionals
Medicine and Health Sciences
Surgical and Invasive Medical Procedures
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Quality of Care
Stakeholders’ perspectives on capturing societal cost savings from a quality improvement initiative: A qualitative study
Societal cost savings and quality improvement initiative
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6602-5492
Kroon Daniëlle Conceptualization Formal analysis Methodology Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 *
van Dulmen Simone A. Conceptualization Formal analysis Methodology Writing – review & editing 1
Stadhouders Niek W. Conceptualization Methodology Writing – review & editing 1
Rosenstok Jonas Supervision Writing – review & editing 2
van den Heuvel Baukje Supervision Writing – review & editing 2
Westert Gert P. Supervision Writing – review & editing 1
Kool Rudolf B. Supervision Writing – review & editing 1
Jeurissen Patrick P. T. Conceptualization Funding acquisition Supervision Writing – review & editing 1
1 Department of IQ Health, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2 Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Kadaifci Cigdem Editor
Istanbul Technical University: Istanbul Teknik Universitesi, TÜRKIYE
Competing Interests: We would like to declare that two authors, Jonas Rosenstok and Baukje van den Heuvel, are prehabilitation program managers and they both participated as interviewee. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

* E-mail: danielle.kroon@radboudumc.nl
23 9 2024
2024
19 9 e03107995 3 2024
8 9 2024
© 2024 Kroon et al
2024
Kroon et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Besides improving the quality of care, quality improvement initiatives often also intend to produce cost savings. An example is prehabilitation, which can reduce complication rates and the length of stay in the hospital. However, the process from utilization reductions to actual societal cost savings remains uncertain in practice. Our aim was to identify barriers and facilitators throughout this process. We used the implementation of prehabilitation in a Dutch hospital as a test case.

Methods

We held 20 semi-structured interviews between June and November 2023. Eighteen stakeholders were affiliated with the hospital and two with different health insurers. Nine interviews were held face-to-face and 11 via Microsoft Teams. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The first transcripts were inductively coded by two authors, the subsequent transcripts by one and checked by another. Differences were resolved through discussion.

Results

We identified 20 barriers and 23 facilitators across four stages: reducing capacity, reducing departmental expenses, reducing hospital expenses and reducing insurer expenses. All participants expected that the excess capacity will be used for other priorities. This was perceived as highly valuable and as an efficiency gain. Other barriers to capture savings included the fear of losing resilience, flexibility, status and revenue. Misalignment between service contracts among hospitals and insurers can hinder the ability to financially incentivize cost reductions. Additionally, some contract types can hinder the transfer of hospital savings to insurers. Identified facilitators included shared savings agreements, an explicit strategy targeting all stages, and labor shortage, among others.

Conclusion

This study systematically describes barriers and facilitators that prevent translating quality improvement initiatives into societal cost savings. Stakeholders expect that any saved capacity will be used for other priorities, including providing care due to the increasing demand. Capturing any cash savings does not occur automatically, emphasizing the need for a strategy targeting all stages.

Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport 331032 Jeurissen Patrick P. T. The study was funded by The Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (grant number 331032). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data AvailabilityData cannot be shared publicly because the participants did not provide consent to share the transcripts to persons other than the researchers. In addition, the transcripts contain business-sensitive information and even anonymized raw data can be compromising. Data are available from the IQ health science department of the Radboudumc (contact via iqhealth@radboudumc.nl) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.
Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because the participants did not provide consent to share the transcripts to persons other than the researchers. In addition, the transcripts contain business-sensitive information and even anonymized raw data can be compromising. Data are available from the IQ health science department of the Radboudumc (contact via iqhealth@radboudumc.nl) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Health expenditure growth is expected to outpace gross domestic product (GDP) growth in most member countries of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) during this decade [1]. Policymakers and healthcare organizations are seeking effective methods to bend the cost curve while preserving or even improving the quality of care [2]. Although for the majority of the quality improvement initiatives the primary aim is enhancing quality of care, occasionally substantial cost-savings are estimated [3–7]. For example, discontinuing five low-value general surgery services in the United Kingdom could lead to an annual cost reduction of €150 million [8].

However, the translation of such theoretical savings of quality improvement initiatives into actual societal cash savings is complex and often not achieved [9]. This is challenging due to various reasons. For example, estimates of cost savings based on reimbursement prices overestimate true savings, because only variable costs, such as costs of disposable equipment and drugs, can be saved in short-term [10, 11]. One study found that these costs only cover 16% of total expenses in hospitals [12]. The majority of expenses, such as salary costs, purchasing costs of reusable medical devices and organizational overhead, are not directly saved when the volume of healthcare services is reduced. Moreover, since claims data do typically consist of cross-subsidies, the actual total costs may be either higher or lower than the official rates. Besides, the relation between external funding structures and internal allocation of resources is blurred [13].

While improving quality of care may free up hospital capacity through shorter hospital stays and reduction of diagnostic tests and procedures, the capacity may be refilled with new treatments. Due to existing incentives in many healthcare systems, such substitution with other care occurs automatically [9, 14–16]. A way to achieve cash savings is to actively discourage care substitution. This requires an investment of time and resources [17]. Excess capacity should be gradually reduced until it reaches a threshold for downsizing, i.e. capacity reductions must be sufficiently large to scale down one single nursing shift, medical specialist, ward, etc.

Because marginal revenues typically exceed marginal costs by far, in fee-for-service type payment systems, scaling down costs is unlikely to be sufficient to cover for losses in hospital revenues. Under a fixed budget revenues are protected but cost savings that are not passed through to payers may shoulder organizational slack and not be returned to society, for example by reductions in taxes or insurance premiums. Moreover, since healthcare costs naturally increase due to demographic changes, new technologies and other structural drivers, it is difficult to establish the accurate benchmark. Cost savings can generally be interpreted as a lower hospital growth rate rather than actual reductions in hospital costs. However, it is challenging deciding upon the appropriate benchmark to measure cost savings in terms of expected growth, historical growth or comparator hospitals [18].

These problems may be solved by a well-designed process flanked by adequate incentives. However, little empirical evidence is available regarding the process to transform quality improvement programs into societal cost savings [2]. Our aim was to contribute to this gap by identifying the barriers and facilitators within the process. We used the implementation of prehabilitation in a university hospital in the Netherlands as a test case. Prehabilitation is a pre-operative multimodal lifestyle improvement program for patients undergoing major surgery. Research has shown that prehabilitation could reduce the number of surgical complications, reoperations and the average length of stay [19–21]. Moreover, a recent systematic review of economic evaluations revealed evidence that prehabilitation can be cost-effective compared to usual care [22]. However, these evaluations lack a comprehensive perspective on the costs and savings [22].

Methods

Study design and scope

In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders of prehabilitation in an academic hospital in the Netherlands. Converting freed hospital capacity into societal cost savings is a multi-step process. Our objective was to identify barriers and facilitators associated with these steps. We considered reduced health insurers’ costs as the main mechanism to obtain societal savings, given the non-profit structure and public financing of health insurers in the Netherlands [16]. In June 2023, the local medical ethics review committee of the Radboud University Medical Center waived the review of this study as the Medical Research involving Human Subjects Act did not apply (file number: 2023–16520). The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) were followed and the completed checklist can be found as S1 File [23].

The test case

Prehabilitation is an important and well-known quality improvement initiative in the hospital. It was gradually implemented between 2021 and 2023 for all high-impact surgery care pathways in seven departments. The intervention consisted of an exercise program, dietetic consultation, psychological support, and smoking cessation support. Prehabilitation has shown positive results on the number of surgical complications, reoperations and the average length of stay [19–21]. Its effectiveness is currently investigated in large scale studies. The hospital financed the implementation and prefinanced the intervention costs. The hospital agreed on a shared-savings agreement with health insurers, anticipating that after about five years after implementation the financial value of the freed capacity would compensate the investment of both health insurers and the hospital.

Setting

In the Netherlands, hospitals compete for contracts with insurers [24]. While there are ten health insurers in 2024, the four dominant insurers collectively hold approximately 90% of the market share, with variations in market shares across regions [25]. The majority of the hospitals are reimbursed through a hospital DRG-like (Diagnosis Related Group) system called DBCs (Diagnose-Behandel-Combinatie, or Diagnosis Treatment Combination) [24]. Many insurers institute a global budgetary limit, either as lump-sum global budget or claims cost ceiling [26]. In the concerning hospital, the vast majority of the medical staff and employees are salaried on a fixed working hours contract.

Recruitment and sampling strategy

The stakeholders were recruited via purposive sampling based on experience, current position and department, and affinity with prehabilitation. While using expert sampling, we aimed to include experienced stakeholders from all relevant clinical and facilitating departments, as well as health insurers. We considered hospital managers to be experts, therefore we invited all hospital managers of the involved clinical departments: surgery, intensive care units and operation rooms. Of the facilitating departments (hospital sales, care administration, business administration), we invited employees who were consulted for the internal prehabilitation business case. We invited two persons working for different insurers. Both were involved in the implementation of prehabilitation. After each interview, the participants were asked to suggest stakeholders they deemed relevant for this study. The suggested persons were also invited. All stakeholders were invited per e-mail to participate in a semi-structured interview between the 13th of June 2023 and the 2nd of November 2023. A reminder was sent in case of no response after three to four weeks.

Data collection

The interviews took place between July 4th and November 22nd 2023. All participants provided verbal informed consent prior to the start of the interview, which was also recorded. Fifteen interviews were conducted by two female researchers DK (MD and MSc) and SvD (PhD), four interviews solo by DK, and one by DK and PJ (male, PhD). All interviewers have experience with qualitative research methods and were not previously involved in the prehabilitation program. The participants knew about their backgrounds and were aware of the study design and objectives. There was no prior relationship between the interviewers and the participants, other than that most participants worked for the same hospital as the interviewers.

The topic guide can be found as S2 File. DK preformed an unstructured literature search to identify possible steps in the process of capturing societal savings and potential barriers and facilitators. DK, NS, SvD and PJ discussed the literature, and shared knowledge and experiences. During iterative meetings, Dk, NS, SvD and PJ identified four stages in the process of capturing societal savings: 1. Reducing capacity, 2. Reducing departmental expenses, 3. Reducing hospital expenses, 4. Reducing insurer costs. These stages were extracted from literature and represent a possible pathway towards societal cost savings [3, 9–11, 13, 27]. DK drafted a interview guide based on the topics discussed during the meetings. The interview guide was reviewed by five team members (SvD, NS, TK, GW and PJ) and adapted based on their feedback. The topic guide was pilot tested with two prehabilitation program managers and a few questions were added to the topic guide. The two pilot interviews were also included in the analysis. The topic guide was slightly adapted for each stakeholder to fit the stakeholders’ experience and expertise. Additionally, after each interview, the topic guide was evaluated and extended when the interviewees mentioned new perspectives.

The interviews were preferably held during a face-to-face meeting. If that was inconvenient, the interviews were conducted via a video call using Microsoft Teams. Only the interviewers and participants were present during the interviews. Field notes were made during the interviews to direct further questions. Data saturation was defined as the point in coding when no new barriers or facilitators were identified in two subsequent transcripts. No new interviews were conducted after data saturation was reached. No repeat interviews were carried out and the transcripts were not returned for correction to the participants.

Data analysis

The interviews were audio-recorded during face-to-face meetings and video-recorded during video-calls. The recordings were transcribed ad verbatim and the transcripts were analysed in ATLAS.ti. Two authors (DK and SvD) performed a inductive content analysis using the constant comparative method. DK and SvD independently coded the first transcripts. Open coding was used to label barriers and facilitators. If participants mentioned that the presence of an influencing factor hindered the process, it was labelled as a barrier. If the presence would facilitate the process, it was labelled as a facilitator. The barriers and facilitators were categorized into the four stages: reducing capacity, reducing departmental spending, reducing hospital expenses, reducing insurer expenses. During the coding, it came apparent that the first stage consisted of multiple steps. DK and SvD inductively created substages to emphasize these required steps. This was discussed during multiple meetings. Agreement on the coding was reached after five transcripts and the other transcripts were coded by one author (DK) and checked by another (SvD). Differences were resolved in consensus meetings with DK and SvD. The results were discussed during a meetings with NS and PJ.

Results

We interviewed 20 stakeholders, 10 male and 10 female, of which the functions can be found in Table 1. Three invited professionals did not participate: one surgeon did not reply, one surgeon rejected due to lack of affinity with the subject, and one hospital sales manager rejected due to lack of time. Nine interviews were held face-to-face, and 11 interviews via Microsoft Teams. The duration of the interviews ranged from 27 to 62 minutes.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310799.t001 Table 1 Function of participants and their relation with prehabilition.

Function	Number*	Relation with prehabilitation	
Medical doctor	6	Three were treating patients after prehabilitation	
Three were selected due to their second position	
Hospital manager	4	All were responsible for the finances of departments that were affected by prehabilitation (surgery, operation rooms and intensive care units)	
Program manager	3	Two were active prehabilitation program managers	
One was a former prehabilitation program manager and active program manager of other quality improvement initiatives	
Hospital administrator	3	Two were consulted during the development of business case of prehabilitation, one was the financial advisor of a relevant department	
Health insurer	2	Both were involved in the prehabilitation case	
Nurse	2	Both nursed hospitalized patients after prehabilitation	
Business controller	1	Was consulted during the development of business case of prehabilitation and during the implementation of prehabilitation	
Hospital sales manager	1	Was involved in making agreements concerning prehabilitation	
Internal strategy consultant	1	Was familiar with prehabilitation, no direct involvement with prehabilition, has experience with other quality improvement initiatives	
Hospital board member	1	Was responsible for the financing of prehabilitation and external agreements	
*20 respondents were interviewed, some participants have multiple functions, e.g., medical doctor and manager.

From 20 interviews, we identified 20 barriers and 23 facilitators across the four stages: reducing capacity, reducing department spending, reducing hospital spending, reducing insurer spending. These can be found in Table 2. Each stage of the process was considered a prerequisite for advancing to the subsequent stage, all aimed at achieving societal cost savings by reducing insurer expenses. The first stage, reducing capacity, has three subcategories: creating excess capacity, preventing substitution with other care, and downsizing.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310799.t002 Table 2 Barriers and facilitators per stage of the process of translating capacity savings into societal cost savings.

Stage	Barrier	Facilitator	
1. Reducing capacity	Creating excess capacity
• The perceived freed up capacity may be lower than the calculated capacity reductions
Preventing substitution with other care
• Demand for care exceeds existing supply
• Substitution is highly valued
• Supplier-induced demand allows substitution with other care
• Financial incentives stimulate substitution
• Non-financial incentives stimulate substitution
Downsizing
• Hospital employees have an aversion towards downsizing
• Minimum capacity constraints prevent downsizing
• A high threshold must be reached before excess capacity can be scaled down
• The hospital board has a restrained approach towards downsizing
• Hospital employees have a preference to use excess capacity instead of downsizing	• Combining multiple initiatives allows reaching capacity reduction thresholds
• Active management could prevent substitution
• The drive to provide appropriate care could counter supplier-induced demand
• Insurance agreements can counter unwarranted financial incentives
• Optimizing collaboration within the hospital can reduce the minimum capacity
• Securing the department’s income counters the fear of losing revenue
• A strategy could facilitate downsizing
• Labor market issues may lead to downsizing	
2. Reducing departmental expenses	• Providing less care does not automatically lower departmental expenses
• A high threshold most be reached before working hours can be reduced
• Reducing expenses requires time
• Insurance agreements do not directly impact the department’s decision making	• The hospital board commits to achieving cost savings
• A top-down cost-cutting strategy could reduce department budgets
• Flexible staffing allows reductions in working hours
• High turnover of personnel allows reductions in working hours
• Trust that any savings will be well-utilized can motivate employees to reduce expenses
• The department benefits from realizing savings, i.e., as part of shared-savings agreements	
3. Reducing hospital expenses	• Reduced departmental expenses do not automatically reduce the hospital expenses
• Hospitals have a reluctance to effectuate savings
• The diversity of insurance agreements may misalign cost-cutting incentives	• Hospitals have authority to enforce budgetary constraints
• A long-term cost-cutting strategy is needed for reducing hospital expenses
• Securing the hospital’s income counters the fear of losing revenue
• Aligned agreements with all involved insurers could prevent free-rider behavior	
4. Reducing insurer expenses	• DBC rates do not automatically decline when an initiative is effective
• Agreements on the total hospital budget hinder transfers of cost savings	• The hospital’s belief that savings need to be returned to society via insurers
• There is a common responsibility to maintain affordable healthcare
• Some agreements could to transfer savings from the hospital to insurer
• Shared savings agreements could motivate hospitals to reduce costs
• Scaling initiatives to other hospitals may increase societal cost savings	
DBC: Diagnosis Treatment Combination, the Dutch equivalent of Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs)

Stage 1. Reducing capacity

Creating excess capacity

The starting assumption is that a decrease in length of stay reduces the required hospital capacity. Some interviewees agreed with this, while others have questioned whether the nurses’ workload decreases proportionally. In particular in the ICU, the first admission day has a higher workload than the following days. Reducing the length of stay may therefore have less impact on the capacity than preventing the admission. In addition, tasks like training patients to self-care and lifestyle adjustments, still needs to be performed before the hospital discharge. Consequently, the perceived excess capacity may be lower than presumed. On the other hand, excess capacity can be enlarged by implementing multiple initiatives that reduce length of stay.

Preventing substitution with other care

To reduce the created excess capacity, it is essential that any reductions in care are not filled with other care. However, most participants expect that the excess capacity will be used for other patients. It is frequently mentioned that the demand of care currently exceeds the available supply, and it is expected that the demand will further increase in the future. The interviewees emphasized that some specialized healthcare professionals are scarce and should therefore be deployed most efficiently. They considered the opportunity to provide more care with the same resources highly valuable.

Quote: ‘You have a whole operating room complex with all kinds of people ready to do various things. It is wasteful, also a societal waste, not to deploy those people effectively. So, you should let them operate as efficiently as possible. As long as there is demand, as long as there are waiting lists. But that should not be the basis of treatment decisions. It is more like: if people are already on the waiting list, then you want to help as many as possible.’ Participant 13, hospital sales manager

Interviewees expect additional supplier-induced demand as a consequence of available excess capacity. For example, indications for treatment may expand when capacity becomes available. Additionally, the presence of excess capacity reduces the pressure to discharge patients, which may lead to prolonged length of stay of other admitted patients. Participants perceive financial and non-financial incentives to provide care. For example, specialists need to reach target volumes to preserve their competence. On the other hand, providing less care is discouraged, because one may lose opportunities for research, their status, their patients, and departments may need to downsize their capacity. Furthermore, not using full capacity may conflict with other process indicators on which the departments are assessed, such as warm-bed time.

Quote: ‘If [the board] would say: "The ICU is now five million short, and we must reduce staff or whatever", that would be the most foolish thing there is. And then I am going to admit patients to the ICU, who do not belong there, for 3,500 euros. I can earn my money if I want to. I can earn it easily. What all ICUs are doing now is admitting their Medium Care patients to the ICU and billing them as ICU beds. That is what is happening in the Netherlands now.’ Participant 4, medical doctor

The stakeholders also mentioned facilitators. Some participants deemed it possible to prevent substitution with active management and a top-down approach. Furthermore, the drive to provide appropriate care and prevent inappropriate care could counter supplier-induced demand. For example, patients do not always benefit from additional care, especially in the case of ICU treatment. Moreover, the demand for intensive care is decreasing, further reducing substitution possibilities. Lastly, increasing care provision may not be profitable for the hospital if the insurer instated a budgetary cap.

Downsizing hospital capacity

To render cost savings, the hospital should minimize its expenses. A viable approach involves downsizing the departmental excess capacity. Participants have expressed negative associations with downsizing in general, and they offered barriers specifically for downsizing excess capacity.

The interviewees expressed an aversion towards downsizing in general. Downsizing is a sensitive matter, and the culture within an organisation and the behaviour of individuals can hinder the process. There are negative perceptions of downsizing, such as it being the start of a slippery slope. Participants stated that once you shrink, you will not be able to retrieve the capacity in the future. Downsizing is also associated with the risk of losing expertise, status, the market position of the departments and the hospital. Moreover, participants fear losing flexibility in providing care, and consequently foresee increasing problems with the planning and coordination.

Quote: ’I would absolutely not be in favor of reducing eighteen beds by two or four. Soon, you will have nothing left, and I see it happening now at [department]. In the past, I had ten, twelve beds, and we could provide excellent service to the region. I have now been reduced to six. It is a disaster; it is a disaster to schedule your surgeries, and you have no flexibility anymore. But you are also nothing. You become almost a joke in the region. We need to create a [specialty] network now and we are bringing a six-bed facility. Honestly, I am ashamed.’ Participant 3, hospital manager

Participants also mentioned barriers for reducing the excess capacity. First, the presence of excess capacity does not automatically mean that it can be reduced. A reduction in capacity typically requires reaching a certain threshold. Moreover, the downsizing potential is limited by factors such as the requirement of minimal staffing and the need for resilience in case of outbreaks or disasters. Moreover, various participants stated that the departments are already at a minimal capacity. In their perception, they cannot shrink any further, for example because of the need to meet volume norms and retain income. Not meeting these will have negative consequences for departments, such as a loss of revenue. Additionally, tertiary medical centres have certain responsibilities, such as unlimited accessibility for patients in need of tertiary care. If they fail, they risk losing their credibility. Moreover, some participants believe that excess capacity should not be downsized, but the available time should be invested in quality enhancing tasks, such as innovating and teaching. And last, according to participants, the hospital board and the government currently do not make the necessary decisions in reallocating resources and do not steer towards downsizing.

Downsizing is facilitated by improved collaboration within the organization and within the region. This could for example reduce the minimal required staffing. Additionally, a top-down downsizing strategy, endorsed by healthcare professionals, could facilitate the process. This could involve for example establishing explicit agreements and incorporating follow-up mechanisms and data. Furthermore, there is an increasing shortage of nurses and operation room employees. If resigned staff cannot be replaced due to these shortages, downsizing is inevitable. Last, it is suggested that lump-sum payment agreements could overcome the barrier of risking loss of revenue.

Stage 2. Reducing departmental expenses

Some participants stated that providing less care does not naturally lead to lower departmental expenditures. The costs saved directly are the variable costs, i.e., material costs. Some interviewees estimated that such costs are only a small percentage of the total departmental costs. The semi-variable costs, e.g., personnel costs, can eventually be reduced, but require reaching a substantial reduction in care. The participants mentioned that this may be difficult due to the small patient numbers in their hospital. In addition, it takes time before expenses can be lowered. The interviewees expect that healthcare professionals will substitute freed-up time with other valuable tasks before the threshold to permanently close a single bed is reached. Such substitution could reduce the perceived quantity of excess capacity. Furthermore, the interviewees mentioned the department’s fixed costs, which cannot be reduced easily. As previously mentioned, departments require minimal staffing, for example to cover all shifts and to ensure quality and safety during the shifts. A participant estimated that the fixed costs alone already exceed 50% of total costs. In addition, clinical departments finance supporting departments, such as the operating rooms and the radiology department. Departments can reduce the number of required services, but this does not substantially reduce the expenses of the supporting departments. To avoid a negative balance, either the fees per services must increase or the free capacity must be used for providing other care. Some participants do not expect that departments will voluntarily reduce expenses. Therefore, a top-down approach may be necessary.

Quote: ‘If you really want to cut costs, then, of course, you have to do fewer things on a large volume. That is always the pain point in an academic medical center […]. And for us, because we have small volumes, does it mean I have to remove a nurse’s arm or a leg? Well, that often just does not work.’ Participant 12, hospital board member

A few participants also pointed out that healthcare is a complex system, and that a change in one place can also have consequences somewhere else. For example, reducing spending on staffing can result in less flexibility in care delivery, and it can subsequently induce workload and extra costs for the coordination of care. Lastly, departments and healthcare professionals lack awareness about existing agreements with insurers, limiting the impact of these agreements.

Quote: ‘What I often see is that various initiatives are penny-wise and pound-foolish. So, we save fifteen cents with a specific procurement action, but then we do not realize that suddenly we have additional costs because we have added another provider with whom contracts are made, so someone else incurs those extra costs. […] But also, for example, those five nurses that had been cut back […], you can present that as a significant saving. I am afraid that it has also resulted in us not achieving the revenues because we simply could not accommodate the patients.’ Participant 7, hospital administrator

There are also facilitators to lower departmental expenditures. The hospital board commits to achieve cost-savings with the implementation of prehabilitation, making the deployment of a cost-cutting strategy more likely. Moreover, reducing costs can be rewarded by shared-savings agreements that return part of the savings to the department. To stimulate capacity reductions, excess capacity in the ward and in the operating rooms can be adopted by other specialties. For example, IC nurses can work on the emergency department or the coronary care unit (CCU). In addition, workforce reductions could be achieved by phasing out through natural outflow due to a high turnover of nurses, rather than resorting to terminations. Furthermore, there is currently a shortage of nurses, causing understaffing. Apart from the potential negative consequences, this could also reduce departmental expenses. Another driver to reduce departmental spending is the trust that savings are purposefully spent. A participant stated that the value for money may increase when financial resources are reallocated towards other sectors, for example elderly care. Excessive spending on a few patients could be perceived as incompatible with budgetary constraints elsewhere. If the stakeholders trust that savings would be spent wisely, it could enhance their motivation to reduce costs.

Stage 3. Reducing hospital expenses

Reducing departmental expenses does not necessarily reduce the total hospital costs. For example, when excess capacity is absorbed by other departments, e.g., when a nurse works in a different department, the total hospital spending remains unchanged. Participants stated that a multi-year plan is needed to effectuate the cost-savings. Another participant mentioned that the hospital board often does not specifically enforce case-based cost savings, while that is perceived as necessary.

Quote: ‘We chose to implement prehabilitation. That simply means that you have excess capacity in other areas. So, in those areas, you also need to achieve your savings. And if not, if you are not willing to do that, then you also need to have the courage to say: we do not want this and we stop offering prehabilitation. That is also an option’ Participant 9, strategy consultant

Dutch hospitals negotiate with multiple health insurers, resulting in various budgetary agreements. A participant mentioned that misalignment of incentives for downsizing and cost-cutting may consequently occur. For example, one agreement may consist of a lump-sum payment, securing the hospital’s income while reducing excess capacity, while a cost ceiling agreement with a different insurer could reduce hospital income when excess capacity is reduced. In addition, participants deemed transferring departmental savings via the hospital to the insurers as complex. First, there is a lack of insight in how costs are structured, hindering monitoring actual cost-savings. Besides, some interviewees stated that there is a misalignment between internal budgeting and reimbursement, further complicating the transfer.

Quote: ’Because from a specialization perspective, you focus on your production plan, and as a hospital, you focus on the required Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs), but there is an indirect link in that. It is not a one-to-one relationship. Additionally, you also deal with a whole cost price system. […] So the question is: Are the savings of those few FTEs sufficiently reflected in the system that lies underneath it? Often, it is just rounded off.’ Participant 15, hospital administrator

Mentioned facilitators include a secured hospital income and aligned agreements with the involved insurers. This would enable the hospital to reduce expenses without the fear of incurring a loss. Additionally, the stakeholders emphasized the role of the hospital board. The board has the authority to enforce departmental budgetary constraints to reduce the hospital expenditure. In this scenario, the individual departments retain the authority to determine cost-cutting measures, which may not necessarily involve reducing excess capacity.

Stage 4. Reducing insurer expenditures

Several participants stated that savings should be effectuated by the health insurers through lower premiums. In addition, a stakeholder deemed achieving hospital savings a prerequisite to transfer any savings to the insurers. Reduction of insurers’ costs largely depends on the agreements between the hospital and the health insurers. Participants named reducing the DBC (the Dutch equivalent of Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs)) rates or reducing the number of reimbursed DBCs as a way to transfer savings to society. However, they also stated that the DBC rates are not aligned with actual hospital costs and health insurers lack insight in the hospital expenditures, therefore DBC rates do not automatically decline when an initiative is effective. Therefore, cost savings may depend on specific agreements with hospitals. These are, however, often lacking because the savings potential of a single quality improvement initiative may face too many transaction costs to be included in the negotiation process. Another participant stated that reducing the DBC rates or the number of DBCs does not automatically reduce insurer costs. Agreements are made on the level of both the DBC rate and the total hospital budget. Budgetary caps could hinder translating hospital savings to the insurer, because insurers may not have to reimburse the full costs or not reimburse at all when a cap is reached. Therefore, savings on the level of DBCs are not automatically transferred to the payers. Also, in case of lump sum agreements, lowering of rates or the number of DBCs does not influence the reimbursed amount.

Some participants also mentioned some agreements between hospitals and insurers that facilitate the transfer of savings. For example, an open-ended budget automatically reduces hospital expenditures in case of volume reductions or reductions in the DBC rate. Also shared-savings agreements could transfer part of the hospital savings, while additionally motivate stakeholders to reduce costs. However, within a shared savings model, participants wonder how much will be left when the savings are shared with all stakeholders. Moreover, interviewees of the hospital and an insurer mentioned free-rider behavior by other insurers. Therefore, aligned agreements of insurers is mentioned as a prerequisite. Another proposed solution is a multiyear agreement, because it can provide the hospital time to reduce their cost structure. However, participants mentioned that insurers are reluctant on such agreements, for example because of the uncertainties of price fluctuations. Last, innovation-specific agreements are also mentioned to transfer hospital savings to insurers.

Quote: ‘I personally find the shared savings model to be a good principle because, ultimately, they are societal costs. Or it has been contributed by society, so it should flow back in that direction. But, of course, it is quite elegant if the hospital benefits from it as well. I mean, that is just where it starts. Every change process is simply individuals asking themselves, ’What’s in it for me?’‘ Participant 9, strategy consultant

Another facilitator is the common goal of stakeholders to keep healthcare affordable and innovative. It is perceived to be a societal responsibility to contain the healthcare spending. In addition, investments of insurers may lead to external pressure for hospitals to effectuate savings. And last, scaling the innovation to more hospitals is also seen as a way to enhance societal savings.

Discussion

Twenty barriers and 23 facilitators were identified in four stages to capture societal cost savings: reducing capacity, department expenses, hospital expenses and insurer expenses. In general, there is an aversion towards downsizing. Due to lack of incentives to reduce costs or top-down policies for downsizing, all participants expect that any excess capacity will be used to provide other care. Nevertheless, such substitution is perceived as valuable and a societal gain. Other mentioned barriers are fear of losing resilience, flexibility, status and revenue. Moreover, agreements with a budgetary cap and lump sum agreements may hinder the translation of the cost savings to the insurers. And last, misalignment of agreements between hospitals and health insurers creates financial barriers for downsizing and cost-cutting. Identified facilitators included shared savings agreements, a downsizing strategy, labor shortages, and a shared responsibility to secure affordable healthcare, among others.

The identified barriers indicate that monetizing savings for society does not occur automatically when an initiative is effective. Stakeholders expect that saved capacity will be used to provide other care. This aligns with existing literature describing supplier-induced demand in healthcare [14, 15, 28, 29]. Reducing length of stay only saves a small percentage of the expenditure directly, because personnel costs and fixed costs remain unaffected in the short term [10]. A study illustrated that a reduction of 12 beds, typical for a ward, enables personnel reorganization and substantially reduce semi-fixed costs [27]. However, such large-scale downsizing requires a large volume of excess capacity. This may require combining multiple quality improvement initiatives as part of a hospital-wide strategy [9]. Moreover, stakeholders mentioned the need for a strategy or active approach to achieve reductions on all four stages. For example, a strategy is also deemed necessary to subsequently transfer the hospital savings to insurers due to existing misaligned agreements and incompatible budgeting systems [13, 30].

Another identified facilitator is to secure the departments and hospital’s income. However, securing either the departments or hospital’s income and achieving societal costs savings seem incompatible. Nevertheless, this may be possible when savings are interpreted as a reduction in hospital spending growth rate compared to a historical benchmark. Shared-savings agreements between parties may accommodate this, although past experiments yield mixed results [9, 31, 32].

Downsizing is deemed controversial by participants. The stakeholders emphasize that the demand for care currently exceeds the supply and it is expected to further increase [33]. Substituting excess capacity with other necessary care may partly compensate for increasing demand. Therefore, providing more care with approximately the same resources could also be considered as a societal gain of quality improvement initiatives. In addition, it may not be necessary to aim for downsizing, since increasing shortages of medical professionals may cause natural downsizing in the future [33, 34]. In this case, effective prehabilitation could offer the opportunity to increase efficiency, and thereby retaining the accessibility of care.

Healthcare decision-making may be improved by broadening the scope of the value of quality improvement initiatives [35]. The value of quality improvement initiatives may cover a broader range than cash savings and saved hospital capacity [36]. For example, prehabilitation may additionally reduce home care and could lead to earlier return to work [20]. Furthermore, the identified barriers suggest that monetizing capacity savings is difficult and that the saved amount may be lower than expected. This study suggests that the value of reducing length of stay is to be able to provide care for other patients. Therefore, only expressing the value in terms of costs saved lacks important nuances. By also focusing on the effects on the increased accessibility, healthcare decision making may be improved. Future research should focus on the value of care substitution and the impact of care substitution on the accessibility.

Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first study that identifies barriers and facilitators through the entire process from an effective quality improvement initiative towards reducing societal costs. Additionally, a broad range of relevant stakeholders participated in this study. Some limitations apply. First, even though studies on prehabilitation show promising results, the effectiveness of our test case was yet unknown during the interview period. Consequently, certain questions were framed hypothetical, e.g., ‘what if …’. To substantiate expectations, participants were additionally asked for examples and experiences with other quality improvement initiatives. Secondly, with the exception of two insurer employees, all stakeholders were affiliated with the same hospital. Therefore, some barriers and facilitators may be context specific. Last, this article solely focuses on achieving societal cost savings through the described four stages and does not address the conversion of reduced health insurers’ costs in societal savings in the form of lower premiums or governmental expenses. Nor does this article address alternative ways quality improvement initiatives could generate societal savings.

Conclusion

This study describes barriers and facilitators in the process of capturing societal cost savings across four stages: 1) reducing capacity, 2) reducing department expenses, 3) reducing hospital expenses, and 4) reducing insurer expenses. An encompassing hospital strategy targeting these four stages is recommended, because societal cost savings do not occur automatically when hospital capacity is saved. Shared-savings agreements could facilitate the transfer of hospital cost savings to the health insurers. However, many barriers were encountered. Predominantly, stakeholders expect that any saved capacity will be used for other care due to increasing demand. However, such substitution with other care is also perceived as a societal gain. Framing financial gains of quality improvement initiatives in terms of addressing increasing demand may therefore be more accurate. This would require additional research into the value of care substitution.

Supporting information

S1 File Completed checklist of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ).

(PDF)

S2 File Topic guide.

(DOCX)

We would like to thank the interviewees for their time and effort.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310799.r001
Decision Letter 0
Kadaifci Cigdem Academic Editor
© 2024 Cigdem Kadaifci
2024
Cigdem Kadaifci
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
17 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-04936Stakeholders’ perspectives on capturing societal cost savings from quality improvement initiatives: a qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kroon,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 31 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cigdem Kadaifci, Assoc. Prof.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (grant number 331032).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“JR and BvdH are program leaders of the prehabilitation implementation. Because they are also important stakeholders, they both participated as interviewee. The other authors have no competing interests to declare.”

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to peer-review the manuscript “Stakeholders’ Perspectives On Capturing Societal Cost Savings From A Quality Improvement Initiative: A Qualitative Study “ by Kroon et al .I congratulate the authors on this well-performed and very interesting study. I believe that their paper will be very stimulating for the discussions about implementing prehabilitation pathways internationally!

Before accepting this manuscript for publication, I would recommend addressing the minor points below:

Abstract: The results should be written in past tense.

Methods - Study design and scope: Please provide the date of the ethics waiver (at least month and year, so that it becomes apparent if that was sorted before the first interview).

Methods - Recruitment and sampling strategy:

Suggest introducing a definition of data saturation here and state that you would stop once it was reached. Please consider moving the following information to the results part: “We interviewed 20 stakeholders, 10 male and 10 female, of which the functions can be found in table 1. Three invited professionals did not participate: one surgeon did not reply, one surgeon rejected due to lack of affinity with the subject, and one hospital sales manager rejected due to lack of time.”

Table 1: Suggest to sort by number, suggest to move to results.

Methods – Data collection:

Please consider moving the following information to the results part: “Nine interviews were held face-to-face, and 11 interviews via Microsoft Teams. The duration of the interviews ranged from 27 to 62 minutes. [….] Data saturation was reached after 20 interviews.”

Was the interview guide pilot tested?

Methods - Recruitment and sampling strategy: Suggest to introduce a definition of data saturation here and state that you would stop once it was reached.

Methods – Data analysis: Did you follow specific transcribing rules, e.g. regarding “ehms” and things like laughter etc.?

Which methodological orientation and theory did you follow? How did you create the coding tree? I.e. how did you create the three subcategories of the first category, how did you decide what constitutes a barrier and what constitutes a facilitator?

Results:

Table 2: Write out “DBC” or provide abbreviation in a legend.

Quote in l. 203: Consider translating it with “… then you want to help as many as possible.” when referring to people.

Discussion: societal cost savings is more than just reducing insurer expenses in my view

Appendix:

COREQ checklist: Provide page numbers please. Also, please re-consider if items 6, 8, 15, 18 and 28 really were not applicable or whether you did not do them. The later is fine but you should be transparent about it, e.g., you should state that no relationship established prior to study commencement (item 6), if that was not the case.

Data sharing statement: Please add a statement why transcripts cannot be shared.

On a side-note: In Germany, we are facing similar issues like the ones covered in your study from the Netherlands. It will be interesting what the ongoing hospital reform in Germany (Hospital Remuneration Act) will change. E.g., the plan is to add retention sum lumps to the current system of per-case flat rates, so that hospitals receive money for offering certain services (not per service provided). Downsizing (and closure of hospitals) is a very emotional/ and mostly negatively depicted topic among the public (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10389-024-02271-6). However, many citizens don’t know that hospitals are already forced to close down wards due to lack of nursing staff (which you discussed also).

Best wishes,

Tanja Rombey

Reviewer #2: The authors developed a qualitative study for identifying barriers and facilitators whether quality improvement initiatives such as prehabilitation result in societal cost savings. They conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders relevant to implemented prehabilitation program in a Dutch hospital including medical personnel, hospital administrators and health insurers. The questions in the interview are grouped into four categories: reducing capacity, reducing departmental expenses, reducing hospital expenses and reducing insurer costs and the authors identified 20 barriers and 23 facilitators across these categories. The results suggest that quality improvement initiatives that could save capacity may not necessarily result in quantifiable cost-savings due to barriers and increasing demand.

Major comments:

The paper is well-written and it is about an important topic. However, there are some issues I would like to raise about the study.

1) The main assumption of the study is that prehabilitation or other similar quality improvement initiatives can reduce the length of stay in the hospital and increase capacity. Then, this yields to four possible results/categories: reducing capacity, reducing departmental excess, reducing hospital expenses and reducing insurer costs. These categories were selected from a viewpoint article. First, based on the implementation of prehabilitation in this hospital, does it really result with less LOS and increased capacity? Second, if so, have you been able to establish any links between increased capacity and these four possible categories/results? In other words, is there any supporting evidence that links prehabilitation or any other quality improvement initiatives with reducing capacity, departmental excess etc. in your hospital or in the literature? Selection of a viewpoint article for this major assumption seems weak for this study since if this link does not exist, all these discussions would be pointless.

Conversely, any findings here could be applicable to any interventions that yields these results. So, focusing on prehabilitation does not seem necessary which can be seen from the topic guide (very few questions are about prehabilitation). Why did you select of the interviewers with the knowledge of prehabilitation instead of knowledge of quality improvement programs?

2) What type of purposive sampling techniques are used in this study? Are there any similarities and variations among the interview participants? More information about the sampling procedures would be better (e.g. selection criteria, inclusion/exclusion, importance etc.)

3) The authors claim this is the first study that identifies barriers and facilitators through the entire process from an effective quality improvement initiative towards reducing societal costs. Could you provide more literature to support this claim? Are there any other qualitative or quantitative studies (e.g., cost-effectiveness) on this topic (quality improvement initiatives and/or prehabilitation)? Literature in the introduction section could be extended.

4) Thank you for sharing the topic guide. How did you come up with these questions? Could you provide more context on the development of the topic guide?

5) Table 1 presents the function of the participants. It would be better if you could provide more information on the participants, particularly breadth and depth of understanding about the topic of the participants. What is their experience with the prehabilitation and other quality improvement initiatives? More descriptive statistics about the participants would be good.

Minor Comments:

1) COREQ checklist should provide page number.

2) Citation 5 is not available. Unavailable or unpublished work should not be included. Add a citation with arVix or DOI if not published yet.

3) Citation 13 has no journal or DOI information.

4) Title of the citations in foreign languages (e.g., citation 17 and 33) should be translated to English.

5) Page 6 line 133 should be Table 1.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Tanja Rombey

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0310799.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
6 Aug 2024

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

- We have included the reason why the raw transcripts are not publicly shared.

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to peer-review the manuscript “Stakeholders’ Perspectives On Capturing Societal Cost Savings From A Quality Improvement Initiative: A Qualitative Study “ by Kroon et al .I congratulate the authors on this well-performed and very interesting study. I believe that their paper will be very stimulating for the discussions about implementing prehabilitation pathways internationally!

- Thank you for your time and effort to review our manuscript and thank you for your compliments and suggestions.

Before accepting this manuscript for publication, I would recommend addressing the minor points below:

1. Abstract: The results should be written in past tense.

- We have rewritten the result section to the past tense:

P2, L31:‘We identified 20 barriers and 23 facilitators across four stages: reducing capacity, reducing departmental expenses, reducing hospital expenses and reducing insurer expenses. All participants expected that the excess capacity will be used for other priorities. This was perceived as highly valuable and as an efficiency gain. Other barriers to capture savings included the fear of losing resilience, flexibility, status and revenue. Misalignment between service contracts among hospitals and insurers can hinder the ability to financially incentivize cost reductions. Additionally, some contract types can hinder the transfer of hospital savings to insurers. Identified facilitators included shared savings agreements, an explicit strategy targeting all stages, and labor shortage, among others’

2. Methods - Study design and scope: Please provide the date of the ethics waiver (at least month and year, so that it becomes apparent if that was sorted before the first interview).

- We have added the following sentence to the method section and provided the date of the first interview:

P5, L110: ‘In June 2023, the local medical ethics review committee of the Radboud University Medical Center waived the review of this study as the Medical Research involving Human Subjects Act did not apply (file number: 2023-16520).’

P7, L173: ‘The interviews took place between July 4th and November 22nd 2023.’

3. Methods - Recruitment and sampling strategy:

Suggest introducing a definition of data saturation here and state that you would stop once it was reached. Please consider moving the following information to the results part: “We interviewed 20 stakeholders, 10 male and 10 female, of which the functions can be found in table 1. Three invited professionals did not participate: one surgeon did not reply, one surgeon rejected due to lack of affinity with the subject, and one hospital sales manager rejected due to lack of time.”

- We have added a definition of data saturation in the method section:

P8, L209: ‘Data saturation was defined as the point in coding when no new barriers or facilitators were identified in two subsequent transcripts. No new interviews were conducted after data saturation was reached.’

- We moved both mentioned sentences to the result section on P9, L235.

4. Table 1: Suggest to sort by number, suggest to move to results.

- We have sorted the content of the table by number and moved it to the results section on page 9.

5. Methods – Data collection:

Please consider moving the following information to the results part: “Nine interviews were held face-to-face, and 11 interviews via Microsoft Teams. The duration of the interviews ranged from 27 to 62 minutes. [….] Data saturation was reached after 20 interviews.”

- We have moved the information to the result section on P9, L238.

6. Was the interview guide pilot tested?

- We added information about pilot testing the interview guide:

P7, L291: ‘It was pilot tested with two prehabilitation program managers. These interviews were also included in the analysis.’

7. Methods - Recruitment and sampling strategy: Suggest to introduce a definition of data saturation here and state that you would stop once it was reached.

- We have added a definition of data saturation in the method section:

P8, L209: ‘Data saturation was defined as the point in coding when no new barriers or facilitators were identified in two subsequent transcripts. No new interviews were conducted after data saturation was reached.’

8. Methods – Data analysis: Did you follow specific transcribing rules, e.g. regarding “ehms” and things like laughter etc.?

Which methodological orientation and theory did you follow? How did you create the coding tree? I.e. how did you create the three subcategories of the first category, how did you decide what constitutes a barrier and what constitutes a facilitator?

- We have clarified the used approach in the method section:

P8, L215: ‘The recordings were transcribed ad verbatim and the transcripts were analysed in ATLAS.ti’

P8, L216: ‘Two authors (DK and SvD) performed a inductive content analysis using the constant comparative method. DK and SvD independently coded the first transcripts. Open coding was used to label barriers and facilitators. If participants mentioned that the presence of an influencing factor hindered a step in the process, it was labeled as a barrier. If the presence would facilitate the process, it was labeled as a facilitator. The barriers and facilitators were categorized into the four stages: reducing capacity, reducing departmental spending, reducing hospital expenses, reducing insurer expenses. During the coding, it came apparent that the first stage consisted of multiple steps. DK and SvD inductively created substages to emphasize these required steps. This was discussed during multiple meetings. Agreement on the coding was reached after five transcripts and the other transcripts were coded by one author (DK) and checked by another (SvD). Differences were resolved in consensus meetings with DK and SvD. The results were discussed during meetings with NS and PJ.’

9. Results:

Table 2: Write out “DBC” or provide abbreviation in a legend.

- We provided an abbreviation in the legend:

P12, L267 DBC: Diagnosis Treatment Combination, the Dutch equivalent of Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs)

In addition, we have clarified the abbreviation in the manuscript:

P5, L133: ‘The majority of the hospitals are reimbursed through a hospital DRG-like (Diagnosis Related Group) system called DBCs (Diagnose-Behandel-Combinatie, or Diagnosis Treatment Combination).’

10. Quote in l. 203: Consider translating it with “… then you want to help as many as possible.” when referring to people.

- We have changed ‘as much as possible’ to ‘as many as possible’.

P13, L294: ‘It is more like: if people are already on the waiting list, then you want to help as many as possible.'

11. Discussion: societal cost savings is more than just reducing insurer expenses in my view

- We agree that reducing societal cost savings may not be the same as reducing insurer costs.

We have explained our decision to focus on reducing insurer expenses this in the scope:

Page 5, line 106: ‘Converting freed hospital capacity into societal cost savings is a multi-step process. Our objective was to identify barriers and facilitators associated with these steps. We considered reduced health insurers’ costs as the main mechanism to obtain societal savings, given the non-profit structure and public financing of health insurers in the Netherlands. (16)’

This point was also addressed by the participants and mentioned in the results under the subheading ‘reducing insurer expenditure’ on P19, L453:

‘Several participants stated that savings should be effectuated by the health insurers through lower premiums.’

We also acknowledged that prehabilitation can add value to society in other ways. We have addressed this in the discussion:

P23, L533: Healthcare decision-making may be improved by broadening the scope of the value of quality improvement initiatives.(36) The value of quality improvement initiatives may cover a broader range than cash savings and saved hospital capacity.(37) For example, prehabilitation may additionally reduce home care and could lead to earlier return to work.(21)

Additionally, we have emphasized the limitations of our scope in the limitations:

P24, L554: ‘Last, this article solely focuses on achieving societal cost savings through the described four stages and does not address the conversion of reduced health insurers’ costs in societal savings in the form of lower premiums or governmental expenses. Nor does this article address alternative ways quality improvement initiatives could generate societal savings.’

12. Appendix:

COREQ checklist: Provide page numbers please. Also, please re-consider if items 6, 8, 15, 18 and 28 really were not applicable or whether you did not do them. The later is fine but you should be transparent about it, e.g., you should state that no relationship established prior to study commencement (item 6), if that was not the case.

- Thank you for noting. We reported all items in the manuscript and we inserted the page numbers in the checklist.

P7, L179: ‘There was no prior relationship between the interviewers and the participants, other than that most participants worked for the same hospital as the interviewers.’

P8, L207: ‘Only the interviewers and participants were present during the interviews.’

P8, L211: ‘No repeat interviews were carried out and the transcripts were not returned for correction to the participants.’

13. Data sharing statement: Please add a statement why transcripts cannot be shared.

- We included an explication for not sharing the transcripts:

‘Data cannot be shared publicly because the participants did not provide consent to share the transcripts to persons other than the researchers. In addition, the transcripts contain business-sensitive information and even anonymized raw data can be compromising. Data are available from the IQ health science department of the Radboudumc (contact via iqhealth@radboudumc.nl) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.’

On a side-note: In Germany, we are facing similar issues like the ones covered in your study from the Netherlands. It will be interesting what the ongoing hospital reform in Germany (Hospital Remuneration Act) will change. E.g., the plan is to add retention sum lumps to the current system of per-case flat rates, so that hospitals receive money for offering certain services (not per service provided). Downsizing (and closure of hospitals) is a very emotional/ and mostly negatively depicted topic among the public (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10389-024-02271-6). However, many citizens don’t know that hospitals are already forced to close down wards due to lack of nursing staff (which you discussed also).

Best wishes,

Tanja Rombey

Reviewer #2: The authors developed a qualitative study for identifying barriers and facilitators whether quality improvement initiatives such as prehabilitation result in societal cost savings. They conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders relevant to implemented prehabilitation program in a Dutch hospital including medical personnel, hospital administrators and health insurers. The questions in the interview are grouped into four categories: reducing capacity, reducing departmental expenses, reducing hospital expenses and reducing insurer costs and the authors identified 20 barriers and 23 facilitators across these categories. The results suggest that quality improvement initiatives that could save capacity may not necessarily result in quantifiable cost-savings due to barriers and increasing demand.

Major comments:

The paper is well-written and it is about an important topic. However, there are some issues I would like to raise about the study.

- Thank you for time and effort to review our manuscript and for the provided feedback and suggestions.

1) The main assumption of the study is that prehabilitation or other similar quality improvement initiatives can reduce the length of stay in the hospital and increase capacity. Then, this yields to four possible results/categories: reducing capacity, reducing departmental excess, reducing hospital expenses and reducing insurer costs. These categories were selected from a viewpoint article.

a. First, based on the implementation of prehabilitation in this hospital, does it really result with less LOS and increased capacity?

- There is empirical evidence that reveals the positive effects of prehabilitation on length of stay and complication rate. We provided additional evidence for this in the introduction:

P4, L95: ‘Research has shown that prehabilitation could reduce the number of surgical complications, reoperations and the average length of stay.(19-21)’

We agree that it is an assumption that a reduced LOS would automatically mean that there would be excess capacity. Therefore, we asked the participating healthcare professionals: ‘What is the impact of reducing the length of stay on your workload?’ We have added the question to the topic guide. It was previously not included in there because it was only asked to the minority of the participants (only to the healthcare professionals that provided care to prehabilitated patients).

We addressed the relation of reduced length of stay and excess capacity in the results:

P12, L271: ‘Creating excess capacity

The starting assumption is that a decrease in length of stay reduces the required hospital capacity. Some interviewees agreed with this, while others have questioned whether the nurses’ workload decreases proportionally. In particular in the ICU, the first admission day has a higher workload than the following days. Reducing the length of stay may therefore have less impact on the capacity than preventing the admission. In addition, tasks like training patients to self-care and lifestyle adjustments, still needs to be performed before the hospital discharge. Consequently, the perceived excess capacity may be lower than presumed. On the other hand, excess capacit

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0310799.r003
Decision Letter 1
Kadaifci Cigdem Academic Editor
© 2024 Cigdem Kadaifci
2024
Cigdem Kadaifci
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
8 Sep 2024

Stakeholders’ Perspectives On Capturing Societal Cost Savings From A Quality Improvement Initiative: A Qualitative Study

PONE-D-24-04936R1

Dear Dr. Kroon,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Cigdem Kadaifci, Assoc. Prof.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author's have satisfactorily addressed all my previous comments. I congratulate them on this interesting study!

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Tanja Rombey

Reviewer #2: Yes: Emine Yaylali

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0310799.r004
Acceptance letter
Kadaifci Cigdem Academic Editor
© 2024 Cigdem Kadaifci
2024
Cigdem Kadaifci
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
13 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-04936R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kroon,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Cigdem Kadaifci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Lorenzoni L , Marino A , Morgan D , James C . Health Spending Projections to 2030. 2019.
2 Wackers E , Stadhouders N , Heil A , Westert G , van Dulmen S , Jeurissen P . Hospitals Bending the Cost Curve With Increased Quality: A Scoping Review Into Integrated Hospital Strategies. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11 (11 ):2381–91. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.168 35021613
3 Øvretveit J. Does improving quality save money? A review of evidence of which improvements to quality reduce costs to health service providers. London: the Health Foundation; Sep 2009.
4 Kroon D , Steutel NF H. V , Tabbers MM , Benninga MA , Langendam MW , van Dulmen SA . Effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce inappropriate drug prescribing: an overview of interventions. Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research. 2021.
5 Heus P , van Dulmen SA , Weenink JW , Naaktgeboren CA , Takada T , Verkerk EW , et al . What are Effective Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Care? An Analysis of 121 Randomized Deimplementation Studies. J Healthc Qual. 2023. doi: 10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000392 37428942
6 Pronovost PJ , Needham DM , Waters H , Birkmeyer CM , Calinawan JR , Birkmeyer JD , et al . Intensive care unit physician staffing: financial modeling of the Leapfrog standard. Crit Care Med. 2004;32 (6 ):1247–53. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000128609.98470.8b 15187501
7 Stokes SM , Scaife CL , Brooke BS , Glasgow RE , Mulvihill SJ , Finlayson SRG , et al . Hospital Costs Following Surgical Complications: A Value-driven Outcomes Analysis of Cost Savings Due to Complication Prevention. Ann Surg. 2022;275 (2 ):e375–e81. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004243 33074874
8 Malik HT , Marti J , Darzi A , Mossialos E . Savings from reducing low-value general surgical interventions. Br J Surg. 2018;105 (1 ):13–25. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10719 29114846
9 Wackers E , Dulmen SV , Berden B , Kremer J , Stadhouders N , Jeurissen P . Improving Performance in Complex Surroundings: A Mixed Methods Evaluation of Two Hospital Strategies in the Netherlands. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12 :7243. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7243 37579390
10 Rauh SS , Wadsworth EB , Weeks WB , Weinstein JN . The savings illusion—why clinical quality improvement fails to deliver bottom-line results. N Engl J Med. 2011;365 (26 ):e48. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1111662 22168591
11 Kroon D , Stadhouders NW , van Dulmen SA , Kool RB , Jeurissen PPT . Why Reducing Low-Value Care Fails to Bend the Cost Curve, and Why We Should Do it Anyway. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12 :7803. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7803 37579380
12 Roberts RR , Frutos PW , Ciavarella GG , Gussow LM , Mensah EK , Kampe LM , et al . Distribution of variable vs fixed costs of hospital care. JAMA. 1999;281 (7 ):644–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.7.644 10029127
13 van Leeuwen LVL , Mesman R , Berden HJJM , Jeurissen PPT . Reimbursement of care does not equal the distribution of hospital resources: an explorative case study on a missing link among Dutch hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23 (1 ):1007. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09649-4 37726781
14 Hensher M , Tisdell J , Zimitat C . "Too much medicine": Insights and explanations from economic theory and research. Soc Sci Med. 2017;176 :77–84. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.020 28131024
15 Delamater PL , Messina JP , Grady SC , WinklerPrins V , Shortridge AM . Do More Hospital Beds Lead to Higher Hospitalization Rates? A Spatial Examination of Roemer’s Law. PLoS One. 2013;8 (2) .
16 Wammes JJG , Frederix G , Govaert P , Determann D , Evers S , Paulus A , et al . Case-studies of displacement effects in Dutch hospital care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20 (1 ):263. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05086-9 32228590
17 van Dulmen S , Stadhouders N , Westert G , Wackers E , Jeurissen P . Towards inceased efficiency for specialized medical care. Report evaluation change programs Rivas Zorggroep en Bernhoven. Nijmegen: IQ healthcare; 2020.
18 Stadhouders N. Effective healthcare cost containment policies—using the Netherlands as a case study: Radboud University; 2019.
19 Heil TC , Verdaasdonk EGG , Maas H , van Munster BC , Rikkert M , de Wilt JHW , et al . Improved Postoperative Outcomes after Prehabilitation for Colorectal Cancer Surgery in Older Patients: An Emulated Target Trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023;30 (1 ):244–54. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12623-9 36197561
20 Sabajo CR , Ten Cate DWG , Heijmans MHM , Koot CTG , van Leeuwen LVL , Slooter GD . Prehabilitation in colorectal cancer surgery improves outcome and reduces hospital costs. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023;50 (1 ):107302. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.107302 38043359
21 Berkel AEM , Bongers BC , Kotte H , Weltevreden P , de Jongh FHC , Eijsvogel MMM , et al . Effects of Community-based Exercise Prehabilitation for Patients Scheduled for Colorectal Surgery With High Risk for Postoperative Complications: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Ann Surg. 2022;275 (2 ):e299–e306. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004702 33443905
22 Rombey T , Eckhardt H , Kiselev J , Silzle J , Mathes T , Quentin W . Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations. BMC Med. 2023;21 (1 ). doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-02977-6 37468923
23 Tong A , Sainsbury P , Craig J . Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19 (6 ):349–57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 17872937
24 Jeurissen P , Maarse H . The market reform in Dutch health care: Results, lessons and prospects. European Observatory Health Policy Series. Copenhagen (Denmark) 2021.
25 Romp M , Nijhof E , Wagter J . Vektis Insights into the transfer season. Vektis Intelligence. 5th Edition (2019). 2019.
26 Gaspar K , Portrait F , van der Hijden E , Koolman X . Global budget versus cost ceiling: a natural experiment in hospital payment reform in the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21 (1 ):105–14. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01114-6 31529343
27 Nuti S , Vainieri M , Bonini A . Disinvestment for re-allocation: A process to identify priorities in healthcare. Health Policy. 2010;95 (2–3 ):137–43. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.11.011 20015568
28 Walsh B , Smith S , Wren MA , Eighan J , Lyons S . The impact of inpatient bed capacity on length of stay. Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23 (3 ):499–510. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01373-2 34480667
29 Gooch RA , Kahn JM . ICU bed supply, utilization, and health care spending: an example of demand elasticity. JAMA. 2014;311 (6 ):567–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.283800 24408679
30 Geurkink TH , Marang-van de Mheen PJ , Nagels J , Poolman RW , Nelissen RGHH , van Bodegom-Vos L Impact of Active Disinvestment on Decision-Making for Surgery in Patients With Subacromial Pain Syndrome: A Qualitative Semi-structured Interview Study Among Hospital Sales Managers and Orthopedic Surgeons. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2023;12 (Issue 1 ):1–13. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7710 38618816
31 Vlaanderen FP , Tanke MA , Bloem BR , Faber MJ , Eijkenaar F , Schut FT , et al . Design and effects of outcome-based payment models in healthcare: a systematic review. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20 (2 ):217–32. doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-0989-8 29974285
32 McWilliams JM , Hatfield LA , Landon BE , Hamed P , Chernew ME . Medicare Spending after 3 Years of the Medicare Shared Savings Program. N Engl J Med. 2018;379 (12 ):1139–49. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1803388 30183495
33 Wetenschappelijke Raad voor regeringsbeleid. Choosing for sustainable care. People, resources and societal support, wrr-Rapport 104, Den Haag: wrr. 2021.
34 Crisp N , Chen L . Global supply of health professionals. N Engl J Med. 2014;370 (23 ):2247–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1404326 24897096
35 Page K , Barnett AG , Graves N . What is a hospital bed day worth? A contingent valuation study of hospital Chief Executive Officers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17.28061899
36 Vrinzen CEJ , Bloemendal HJ , Stuart E , Makady A , van Agthoven M , Koster M , et al . Cancer treatments touch a wide range of values that count for patients and other stakeholders: What are the implications for decision-making? Cancer Med-Us. 2023;12 (5 ):6105–16.
