1st Assessment of Relations Between Medical, Surgical and Obstetrics Wards (MCOs) in Private Healthcare Establishments and their Regional Health Agencies (ARSs)
PARIS, May 26, 2016 /PRNewswire/ --
At its annual convention, the FHP-MCO presented the first-year results of its assessment of relations between medical, surgical and obstetrics wards (MCOs) in private healthcare establishments and their Regional Health Agencies (ARSs), led by the IPSOS institute*. Throughout the period, this assessment aimed to promote labour discourse based on private clinics and hospitals, improve transparency and equality of treatment in the operation of ARSs, and to progress dialogue between these establishments and facilities under their care.
"Private healthcare establishments are drowning in regulation, enquiries and with a certain redundancy, with no sense of trying to achieve efficiency. They feel there is true conflict between what institutions under them need and non-compliance with regulations by certain ARSs. That is why we thought it necessary to carry out an assessment of ward in order to address this feeling, which has regional nuances, and restructure over this period - a first in France", explains Ségolène Benhamou, President of the FHP-MCO.
9 out of 10 private healthcare establishments dissatisfied with their place in the health system
The assessment highlights the mass dissatisfaction of private healthcare establishments. 9 private healthcare establishments out of 10 are not satisfied with their place in the health system, and almost all of these establishments (96%) said they were pessimistic about the situation changing in the year to come. This pessimism continues when projected over the next 5 years (88%).
Only 4 out of 10 private healthcare establishments have a positive view of their ARS
Private healthcare establishments have an overall negative view of ARSs. They are perceived by the majority as bureaucratic (66%), unequal (51%), time consuming (50%) and opaque (40%). Only 1 out of 4 private healthcare establishments perceives their ARS as accessible and 1 out of 5 open to dialogue. Only 3% find their ARS objective.
2 out of 3 private healthcare establishments agree that their ARS has a good knowledge of the establishment's activities. However, 3/4 private healthcare establishments confirm that their ARS does not support the development of their establishment.
Private clinics and hospitals also highlight the fact that they don't benefit from the same treatment from their ARS as public healthcare establishments in terms of approvals (87%) and even funding (92%).
A bleak picture for ARSs, whose usefulness is in doubt
The satisfaction level of private healthcare establishments with ARSs is generally very average (with an average of 5.8/10) with a disparity in the operation of establishments. While one out of three establishments scored these ARS between 0 and 4, only 12% rated their satisfaction level 9 or 10. We also see better relations with the local government department (63%) than with ARS headquarters (49%).
For a vast majority of private healthcare establishments, actions taken by the ARS had no impact or negatively affect the quality and safety of care offered to patients (57%), the efficiency of care given to patients (78%), medical and organisational innovation (83%) and even cooperation between the establishment and the local doctor (84%).
Almost 1 in 3 private healthcare establishments (28%) confirm that the actions taken by the ARS negatively affect cooperation between the establishment and public healthcare facilities.
Equal treatment and transparency highlighted by establishments
Equality of treatment compared to public health facilities (scored 4.2/10) and the transparency of decisions (scored 3.7/10) were particularly criticised. Variations between the regions suggest that the treatment of private healthcare establishments is not the same between one ARS and another.
"Health democracy, a notion which is so cherished by the institutions, is, alas, not respected by all ARSs. This is usually seen in the publication and transparency of decisions (relating to funding, approvals, etc). However, now we have identified 6 ARSs which did not publish their funding decisions in 2015: Auvergne, Champagne-Ardenne, Franche-Comté, Limousin, Lorraine and the Indian Ocean. It is against their legal or regulatory obligations", concludes Ségolène Benhamou.
*Quantitative inquiry led by IPSOS of 201 heads of private healthcare establishments (directors, deputy directors, corporate officer) interviewed between 22 March and 26 April 2016
Share this article