There is a simple explanation for this: in these countries, both primary and secondary care are included in a long-term chain contract and work together from a single organisational network. In contrast, clear positive effects have been demonstrated in countries such as the United States, England and Germany. Logically, this means that the desired results in the area of quality improvements and cost savings are lagging behind. Due to the absence of second-line care providers in the integrated care contracts, integrated care in the Netherlands can also be referred to as semi-chain care. In comparison with international best practices, chain-based care financing in the Netherlands is different because only primary care providers are included in the chain-based care contracts. In the Netherlands, the VBHC implementation model has been used for the introduction of chain care for patients with chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular problems and COPD. The VBHC implementation model consists of six interrelated building blocks. The founders of the VBHC method, Michael Porter and Elisabeth Teisberg, try to bridge this gap with an implementation model. This makes the implementation of VBHC difficult to get off the ground. There is also another problem in the Netherlands, namely that many healthcare institutions and health insurers focus on budgets rather than the added value of treatment.

However, there is still little scientific consensus on which outcomes are most relevant to patients and how they can best be measured. The concept of VBHC is actually an elaborated cost-effectiveness method from health economics. Porter indicates that a patient’s care pathway should be taken as the starting point, so that the added value of the various disciplines can be determined. In the book ‘Redefining Health Care’, management expert Michael Porter describes VBHC as being about realising the best possible outcome for the patient at the lowest possible healthcare costs. Both VBHC and Triple Aim describe what value is, but both with a completely different focus. In the Netherlands, this is usually referred to as value-driven care. So no emphasis on just saving costs or excessive attention to stories of experience, but a balance that revolves around achieving the best care and health for the patient at the lowest possible cost. The care of the future is about creating multiple value, where economic, clinical and psychosocial values are in balance. In this blog I will make this clear by zooming in on the two concepts and then highlighting the three main differences. But is that right? Are the principles of both concepts the same? We can be brief about that: no. Both concepts originated in the United States and are often referred to in the same breath as value-driven care. Rising demand for and costs of care in the Netherlands. The 3 differences between Value Based Healthcare and Triple Aim you need to knowīoth Value-based healthcare (VBHC) and Triple Aim claim to be the solution for the

Whole person care quadruple aim