IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gdm/wpaper/13417.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Misaligned Stakeholders and Health System Underperformance

Author

Listed:
  • David E. Bloom

    (Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health)

  • Daniel M. Cadarette

    (Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health)

  • Jonty Roland

    (KPMG)

  • Jessica Sullivan

    (Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health)

Abstract

This paper summarizes the findings of the World Economic Forum’s Industry Agenda Council on the Future of the Health Sector’s two-year inquiry into underperformance of health systems. The Council found that misalignments (i.e., situations involving conflicting incentives, behaviour, structures, or policies) among key stakeholders are likely to lead to significant waste, whether measured in terms of health for money or money for health. This paper defines three types of misalignments (those due to divergent objectives, power asymmetries, and cooperation failures), offers concrete examples of each type, and includes several cross-cutting examples from three particularly burdensome disease areas: cancer, diabetes, and mental health. The Council also examined situations in which stakeholders acted to correct misalignments and reduce waste. This paper details several case studies of achieving greater alignment and enumerates a set of lessons for stakeholders. It concludes by making recommendations for future research in this domain. JEL Codes: D47, D49, I11

Suggested Citation

  • David E. Bloom & Daniel M. Cadarette & Jonty Roland & Jessica Sullivan, 2017. "Misaligned Stakeholders and Health System Underperformance," PGDA Working Papers 13417, Program on the Global Demography of Aging.
    • Handle: RePEc:gdm:wpaper:13417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1288/2012/11/WEF_White_Paper_Misaligned_Stakeholders_Health_System_Underperformance_report_2016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Misalignment; alignment; incentives; health; healthcare; divergent objectives; power asymmetries; cooperation failures;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design
    • D49 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Other
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gdm:wpaper:13417. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Cinzia Smothers (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/degraus.html .

    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.