Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 3;22(1):990.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08383-7.

The relations between business model efficiency and novelty, and outcome while accounting for managed competition contract: a quantitative study among Dutch physiotherapy primary healthcare organisations

Rutger IJntema  1 , Di-Janne Barten  2 , Hans Duits  3 , Brian Tjemkes  4 , Cindy Veenhof  2
Affiliations

The relations between business model efficiency and novelty, and outcome while accounting for managed competition contract: a quantitative study among Dutch physiotherapy primary healthcare organisations

Rutger IJntema et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Since 2006, business principles have been introduced to foster efficient healthcare by way of managed competition. Managed competition is expressed by a contract between a health insurer and a physiotherapy primary healthcare organisation (PTPHO). In such a managed environment, PTPHOs have to attain treatment service quality and financial PTPHO-centred outcomes Research shows that business model designs may enhance organisation-centred outcomes. A business model is a design (efficiency or novelty) of how a firm transacts with customers, partners, and vendors; how it connects with markets. However, research on managed competition contract and business model designs, in relation to PTPHO-centred outcomes is new to the healthcare literature. PTPHOs may not know how business model designs enhance outcomes. This study aims to delineate the relations between business model efficiency and novelty, and PTPHO-centred outcomes, while accounting for managed competition contract in Dutch healthcare.

Methods: A quantitative cross-sectional design was adopted. Using a questionnaire, the relations between managed competition, business model efficiency and novelty, and PTPHO-centred outcomes were investigated among PTPHO managers (n = 138). Theory-based expectations were set up and multiple linear regression analyses were applied.

Results: Managed competition and business model efficiency show no relation with PTPHO-centred outcomes. Moderation of the business model efficiency and PTPHO-centred outcomes relation by managed competition contract is not detected. Business model novelty shows a positive relation with PTPHO-centred outcomes. Moderation of the business model novelty and PTPHO-centred outcomes relation by managed competition contract is found.

Conclusions: There seem to be positive relations between business model novelty and PTPHO-centred outcomes on its own and moderated by managed competition contract. No relations seem to exist with business model efficiency. This implies that the combination of persistent use of health insurer-driven managed competition contracts and a naturally efficient PTPHOs may have left too few means for these organisations to contribute to healthcare reforms and attain PTPHO-centred outcomes. Organisation-driven innovation could stretch system-level regulations and provide room for new business models. Optimising contracts towards organisation-driven healthcare reform, including novelty requirements and corresponding reimbursements is suggested. PTPHO managers may want to shift their attitudes towards novel business models.

Keywords: Business model efficiency; Business model novelty; Managed competition contract; Outcomes; Performance; Physical therapy; Physiotherapy; Primary healthcare.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Illustration of expected relations
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Illustration of business model novelty – treatment service quality relation moderated by managed competition contract
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Illustration of business model novelty – financial outcomes relation moderated by managed competition contract
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kankaanpää E, Linnosmaa I, Valtonen H. Public health care providers and market competition: the case of Finnish occupational health services. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:3–16. doi: 10.1007/s10198-010-0217-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Reynolds L, Attaran A, Hervey T, McKee M. Competition-based reform of the national health service in England: a one-way street? Int J Health Serv. 2012;42(2):213–217. doi: 10.2190/HS.42.2.d. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nicholls DA. Routledge advances in health and social policy. New York: Routledge; 2017. The end of physiotherapy.
    1. Enthoven AC. The history and principles of managed competition. Health Aff. 1992;12(1):24-48. - PubMed
    1. Barros PP, Brouwer BF, Thomson S, Varkevisser M. Competition among health care providers: helpful or harmful? Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17:229–233. doi: 10.1007/s10198-015-0736-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources