Editorial

The Dutch health system in 2019: Many major reforms, but still work in progress

In this paper we explore the impact of the emerging COVID-19 pandemic on the governance of healthcare in the Netherlands. In doing so, we re-examine the idea that a crisis necessarily leads to processes of transition and change by focusing on crisis as a specific language of organizing collective action instead. Framing a situation as a crisis of a particular kind allows for specific problem definitions, concurrent solutions and the inclusion and exclusion of stakeholders. Using this perspective, we examine the dynamics and institutional tensions involved in governing healthcare during the pandemic.

We make use of multi-sited ethnographic research into the Dutch healthcare crisis organization as it responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on decision-making at the regional level. We tracked our participants through successive waves of the pandemic between March 2020 and August 2021 and identified three dominant framings of the pandemic-as-crisis: a crisis of scarcity, a crisis of postponed care and a crisis of acute care coordination. In this paper, we discuss the implications of these framings in terms of the institutional tensions that arose in governing healthcare during the pandemic: between centralized, top-down crisis management and local, bottom-up work; between informal and formal work; and between existing institutional logics.

In 2006 a major healthcare reform was introduced in the Netherlands, implying managed competition. This study explored the level of consensus on the outcomes and desired changes of this new system, and differences between stakeholder groups.

A three-round Delphi-study was conducted among Dutch healthcare insurers, health economists, and professionals in general practice (GP) care and mental health (MH) care. In the first round, 20 experts indicated the most important advantages and disadvantages of the Dutch managed competition, and desired changes. Experts in the second (n = 106) and third round (N = 88) rated the importance of the 88 factors identified in the first round.

Only healthcare insurers reached consensus on important advantages (i.e. improved efficiency; room for choice). Health economists reached almost no consensus on any factors. GP and MH-care professionals reached most consensus on disadvantages (i.e. focus on price over quality, increased bureaucracy) and desired changes (i.e. reduce bargaining power of healthcare insurers; increase attention for care of complex patients); half of them suggested abolishment of managed competition.

GP and MH-care professionals were most dissatisfied and suggested several changes or even abolishment of the 2006 reform; healthcare insurers mentioned some benefits. This level of dissatisfaction among health care professionals indicates that there is room for improvement, preferably developed in conjunction with stakeholders.