Towards actionable international comparisons of health system performance: expert revision of the OECD framework and quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To review and update the conceptual framework, indicator content and research priorities of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI) project, after a decade of collaborative work. DESIGN: A structured assessment was carried out using a modified Delphi approach, followed by a consensus meeting, to assess the suite of HCQI for international comparisons, agree on revisions to the original framework and set priorities for research and development. SETTING: International group of countries participating to OECD projects. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the OECD HCQI expert group. RESULTS: A reference matrix, based on a revised performance framework, was used to map and assess all seventy HCQI routinely calculated by the OECD expert group. A total of 21 indicators were agreed to be excluded, due to the following concerns: (i) relevance, (ii) international comparability, particularly where heterogeneous coding practices might induce bias, (iii) feasibility, when the number of countries able to report was limited and the added value did not justify sustained effort and (iv) actionability, for indicators that were unlikely to improve on the basis of targeted policy interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The revised OECD framework for HCQI represents a new milestone of a long-standing international collaboration among a group of countries committed to building common ground for performance measurement. The expert group believes that the continuation of this work is paramount to provide decision makers with a validated toolbox to directly act on quality improvement strategies.

Ownership Effects on Unrelated Diversification: An Institutions' Perspective

Purpose To show that differences in the extent to which firms engage in unrelated diversification can be attributed to differences in ownership structure. Methodology/approach We draw on longitudinal data and use a panel analysis specification to test our hypotheses. Findings We find that unrelated diversification destroys value; pressure-sensitive Anglo-American owners in a firm’s equity reduce unrelated diversification, whereas pressure-resistant domestic owners increase unrelated diversification; the greater the firm’s free cash flow, the greater the negative effect of pressure-sensitive Anglo-American owners on unrelated diversification. Research limitations/implications We contribute to corporate governance and strategy research by bringing in owners’ institutional origin as a shaper of owner preferences in particular with regards to unrelated diversification. Future research may expand our investigation to more than one home institutional context, and theorize on institutional origin effects beyond the dichotomy between Anglo-American and non-Anglo-American (not oriented toward shareholder value maximization) owners. Practical implications Policy makers, financial analysts, owners, and managers may want to reflect about the implications of ownership structure, as well as promoting or joining corporations with particular ownership configurations. Social implications A shareholder value-destroying strategy, such as unrelated diversification has adverse consequences for society at large, in terms of opportunity costs, that is, resources could be allocated to value-creating activities instead. Promoting an ownership configuration that creates value should contribute to social welfare. Originality/value Owners may not be exclusively driven by shareholder value maximization, but can be influenced by normative beliefs (biases) stemming from the institutional context they originate from.

The international standardisation arena and the civil society participation stakes : results of the INTERTERM project

International standards are playing an increasingly important role in market governance while frequently exerting direct effects on health, safety and the environment. Yet civil society, more often than not, is absent from the standardisation procedures. The recommendation made here is to foster the participation of civil society actors in standardisation by framing standardisation topics in a way that will encourage the mobilisation of these actors in accordance with their repertoire of actions and interests and by organising the plural expertise required for the effective participation that is necessary if they are to exert an influence.