Integrated care: easy in theory, harder in practice?

Abstract

Integrated care (IC) is a term now commonly adopted across the world, which implies a positive attitude towards addressing fragmentation of service provision inside health systems. While the principles of IC are simple, their implementation is more controversial. The ever growing number of IC definitions is related to the increasing domains of applications, which reflect the increasing demand induced by ageing multi-morbid patients. An exhaustive definition of IC should now enclose the coordination of health and social services useful to deliver seamless care across organizational boundaries. The current debate on IC is largely fueled by the modern mismatch between the growing burden of health needs for chronic conditions from the demand side and the design of health systems still largely centered on acute care from the supply side. The major reasons of persisting IC weakness in Western European nations stem from arguable choices of health policy taken in a quite recent past. The political creed in ‘market competition’ is likely to be the most emblematic. All initiatives encouraging healthcare providers to compete with each other are likely to discourage IC. Another historically rooted reason of IC weakness is the occupational status of European general practitioners (GPs). While single large-scale organizations have become a pressing priority for a modern primary care, most GPs are still selfemployed professionals working in their own cabinets. It is time to reconsider the anachronistic status of GPs so as to enhance IC in the future.