IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v166y2016icp57-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health care reform and Diagnosis Related Groups in Germany: The mediating role of Hospital Liaison Committees for Jehovah's Witnesses

Author

Listed:
  • Rajtar, Małgorzata

Abstract

Resulting from health care reform in Germany that was implemented in 2003–2004, a new medical classification system called the “Diagnosis Related Groups” (DRGs) was introduced in hospitals. According to the media, social scientists, and a few physicians interviewed in this study the policy negatively transformed the German health care system by allowing the privatization of the hospital sector consistent with the neoliberal health care model. Allegedly, this privileged economic values over the quality of health care and introduced competition between hospitals. Nevertheless, members of the Hospital Liaison Committees (HLCs) of Jehovah's Witnesses argued that the DRGs system could be used to the advantage of Jehovah's Witness (JW) patients. HLCs often assist in the patient's search by providing names of physicians that would be willing to refrain from blood transfusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Rajtar, Małgorzata, 2016. "Health care reform and Diagnosis Related Groups in Germany: The mediating role of Hospital Liaison Committees for Jehovah's Witnesses," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 57-65.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:166:y:2016:i:c:p:57-65
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616304385
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael E. Porter & Clemens Guth, 2012. "Redefining German Health Care," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-642-10826-6, July.
    2. Rajtar, Małgorzata, 2013. "Bioethics and religious bodies: Refusal of blood transfusions in Germany," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 271-277.
    3. Timmermans, Stefan & Almeling, Rene, 2009. "Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 21-27, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reif, Simon & Wichert, Sebastian & Wuppermann, Amelie, 2018. "Is it good to be too light? Birth weight thresholds in hospital reimbursement systems," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-25.
    2. Meng, Zhaolin & Hui, Wen & Cai, Yuanyi & Liu, Jiazhou & Wu, Huazhang, 2020. "The effects of DRGs-based payment compared with cost-based payment on inpatient healthcare utilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(4), pages 359-367.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martimianakis, Maria Athina (Tina) & Hafferty, Frederic W., 2013. "The world as the new local clinic: A critical analysis of three discourses of global medical competency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 31-38.
    2. Brüggemann, Jelmer & Persson, Alma & Wijma, Barbro, 2019. "Understanding and preventing situations of abuse in health care – Navigation work in a Swedish palliative care setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 52-58.
    3. Gartner, Daniel & Kolisch, Rainer, 2014. "Scheduling the hospital-wide flow of elective patients," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 689-699.
    4. Balfe, Myles, 2016. "Standardizing psycho-medical torture during the War on Terror: Why it happened, how it happened, and why it didn't work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 1-8.
    5. Ihlebæk, Hanna Marie, 2021. "Time to care - An ethnographic study of how temporal structuring affects caring relationships in clinical nursing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    6. Ezell, Jerel M. & Walters, Suzan & Friedman, Samuel R. & Bolinski, Rebecca & Jenkins, Wiley D. & Schneider, John & Link, Bruce & Pho, Mai T., 2021. "Stigmatize the use, not the user? Attitudes on opioid use, drug injection, treatment, and overdose prevention in rural communities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    7. Per Magnus Mæhle & Ingrid Kristine Small Hanto & Sigbjørn Smeland, 2020. "Practicing Integrated Care Pathways in Norwegian Hospitals: Coordination through Industrialized Standardization, Value Chains, and Quality Management or an Organizational Equivalent to Improvised Jazz," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-32, December.
    8. Kreuzer, Maria & Cado, Vesna & Raïes, Karine, 2020. "Moments of care: How interpersonal interactions contribute to luxury experiences of healthcare consumers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 482-490.
    9. Simpson, Bob & Khatri, Rekha & Ravindran, Deapica & Udalagama, Tharindi, 2015. "Pharmaceuticalisation and ethical review in South Asia: Issues of scope and authority for practitioners and policy makers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 247-254.
    10. Vale, Mira D. & Perkins, Denise White, 2022. "Discuss and remember: Clinician strategies for integrating social determinants of health in patient records and care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    11. Carla Collicelli, 2013. "Subjective Indicators in the Health Sector and Their Usefulness in Policy Making," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 87-103, October.
    12. Yeung, Karen & Dixon-Woods, Mary, 2010. "Design-based regulation and patient safety: A regulatory studies perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 502-509, August.
    13. James Faulconbridge & Noel Cass & John Connaughton, 2018. "How market standards affect building design: The case of low energy design in commercial offices," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(3), pages 627-650, May.
    14. Vogl, Matthias, 2013. "Improving patient-level costing in the English and the German ‘DRG’ system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 290-300.
    15. Anna Wernhart & Susanne Gahbauer & Daniela Haluza, 2019. "eHealth and telemedicine: Practices and beliefs among healthcare professionals and medical students at a medical university," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, February.
    16. Natasha Marie Kriznik & Guillaume Lamé & Mary Dixon-Woods, 2019. "Challenges in making standardisation work in healthcare: lessons from a qualitative interview study of a line-labelling policy in a UK region," Post-Print hal-02383789, HAL.
    17. Kristín Björnsdóttir, 2014. "The place of standardisation in home care practice: an ethnographic study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(9-10), pages 1411-1420, May.
    18. Norman, Armando H. & Russell, Andrew J. & Merli, Claudia, 2016. "The Quality and Outcomes Framework: Body commodification in UK general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 77-86.
    19. Hartman, Anna E. & Coslor, Erica, 2019. "Earning while giving: Rhetorical strategies for navigating multiple institutional logics in reproductive commodification," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 405-419.
    20. Reilley, Jacob & Pflueger, Dane & Huber, Christian, 2024. "A typology of evaluative health platforms: Commercial interests and their implications for patient voice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 350(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:166:y:2016:i:c:p:57-65. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.