ArticlePloS one2024
How much can we learn from each other? Polish and Hungarian good practices in financing ophthalmology care as a proposal for implementation in Ukraine.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe article aims to compare payment schemes for cataract, glaucoma, vitrectomy, cornea transplantations, DME, and AMD across Hungary, Poland, and Ukraine, and to identify implementable practices in Ukraine within the context of ongoing healthcare reforms.
methodsResearchers used mixed-method research-with legal documents and data analysis on utilisation of ophthalmology services between 2010 and 2019 and in-depth semi structured interviews with fifteen health experts from Hungary, Poland, and Ukraine. Interviewees, five from each country, were representatives from healthcare providers and payers with at least 10 years' experience in ophthalmology care and knowledge about financing schemes in each country of residence.
resultsWe identified significant differences in healthcare delivery and financing of ophthalmology services between Hungary and Poland, despite both countries rely on Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) based systems for hospital care. Good practices for financing specific eye treatments like cataract, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), cornea transplantations, and vitrectomy are identified. The financing scheme, including financial products and incentives, can influence the volume of treatments. Access to ophthalmic care is a key concern, with differences in treatment schemes between Hungary (ambulatory care) and Poland (hospital care), leading to higher costs and the need for centralization of complex procedures like cornea transplantations.
conclusionsThe article highlights the importance of incentivizing quality improvements and removing financial barriers in Poland, while Hungary should focus on continuous monitoring of treatment methods and flexibility in reimbursement. For Ukraine, the research findings are significant due to ongoing healthcare reform, and the country seeks optimal practices while considering the experiences of other countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.