Incentives in financing mental health care in Austria.

BACKGROUND In Austria, financing health care -and even more so mental health care- is characterized by a mix of federal and provincial responsibilities, lack of uniformity in service provision and service providers, and diverse funding arrangements. The division between financing structures for health care and social care makes the situation even more complex. This state of affairs results in various, partly counterproductive and sometimes paradoxical financial incentives and disincentives for the providers, recipients and financiers of mental health services. In several provinces of Austria, recent reform plans in mental health care have focused strongly on establishing community-based and patient-oriented mental health care. One of the main challenges in implementing this new policy is the re-allocation of resources. AIMS OF THE STUDY The authors hypothesize that the existing structure of mental health care financing, with its incentives and disincentives, constitutes an obstacle to patient-oriented community-based mental health care. Analyzing the characteristics of the overall mental health care financing system in one Austrian province, Lower Austria, will provide a better understanding of actor-relationships and inherent incentives and highlight implications for the process of deinstitutionalization. METHOD The authors used an analytical framework based on the principal-agent theory, empirical evidence, and information on financial, organizational and legal structures to identify the characteristics of actor-relationships and the position of single actors within the system. RESULTS The article shows how incentives are linked to existing constellations of actors involved in mental health care financing and identifies significant power relations. As a consequence, incentives and disincentives within the financing system result in hospital- centered and supply-oriented mental health care in Lower Austria. DISCUSSION The current system of financing mental health care provides an obstacle to the provision of patient-oriented and community-based mental care. This is due to existing constellations and power relations among the actors where, most importantly, patients are the weakest party in the patient-payer-provider triangle. Balancing power relations will be a significant prerequisite for alternative financing systems. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES AND FURTHER RESEARCH: If a community and needs-based mental health care system is to be established in Austria, the financing structures have to be changed accordingly. Applying a principal-agent framework is useful for identifying key aspects in mental health care financing in relation to the provision of services. Further research is needed to help develop alternative financing mechanisms that support community-based and patient-oriented mental health care systems.

[1]  F. Holloway,et al.  Case management: a critical review of the outcome literature , 1995, European Psychiatry.

[2]  T. Mcguire,et al.  Hospital response to prospective payment: moral hazard, selection, and practice-style effects. , 1996, Journal of health economics.

[3]  R. E. Gordon,et al.  Predicting length of hospital stay of psychiatric patients. , 1985, The American journal of psychiatry.

[4]  R. Lawson Germany: Maintaining the Middle Way , 1996 .

[5]  S. Altshul,et al.  Alternatives to Mental Hospital Treatment , 1979 .

[6]  S. Sharfstein,et al.  Diagnosis-related groups and general hospital psychiatry: the APA Study. , 1986, The American journal of psychiatry.

[7]  S. Nettleton The Sociology of Health and Illness , 1995 .

[8]  Ray Robinson,et al.  The economics of social problems , 1978 .

[9]  L. Aiken,et al.  Paying for services: promises and pitfalls of capitation. , 1989, New directions for mental health services.

[10]  Joseph E. Stiglitz,et al.  PRINCIPAL AND AGENT , 1989 .

[11]  B. Turner,et al.  Medical power and social knowledge , 1987 .

[12]  Julian Le Grand,et al.  Learning from the NHS internal market , 1998 .

[13]  R. Baggott Health and Health Care in Britain , 1994 .

[14]  Fritz W. Scharpf,et al.  Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung , 1995 .

[15]  R. V. D. Borght Grundzüge der Sozialpolitik , 1923 .

[16]  D. Salkever,et al.  Hospital payment effects on acute inpatient care for mental disorders. , 1985, Archives of general psychiatry.

[17]  J. Lave,et al.  Psychiatry under prospective payment: experience in the first year. , 1988, The American journal of psychiatry.

[18]  A. Schwartz Informations- und Anreizprobleme im Krankenhaussektor , 1997 .

[19]  V. Valdmanis,et al.  Principal-agent problems in health care systems: an international perspective. , 1997, Health policy.

[20]  K. Wells,et al.  Outcomes for adult outpatients with depression under prepaid or fee-for-service financing. , 1993, Archives of general psychiatry.

[21]  J. Figueras,et al.  Critical Challenges For Health Care Reform In Europe , 1998 .

[22]  J. Lave,et al.  A comparison of hospital responses to reimbursement policies for Medicaid psychiatric patients. , 1989, The Rand journal of economics.

[23]  J. Wing From institutional to community care , 1981, The Psychiatric quarterly.

[24]  Michael Bury,et al.  The Sociology of the Health Service , 1991 .

[25]  D. Mechanic,et al.  Psychiatric reimbursement reform in New York State: lessons in implementing change. , 1994, The Milbank quarterly.

[26]  V. Kofie,et al.  Prospective payment for psychiatry--feasibility and impact. , 1986, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  D. Sappington Incentives in Principal-Agent Relationships , 1991 .

[28]  H H Goldman,et al.  Evaluating the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation program on chronic mental illness. , 1994, The Milbank quarterly.