Value Based Health Care

Key question: How can we make the four value dimensions visible and usable as a compass for decision-making — from the kitchen table to the boardroom?

Steering towards health gains requires different information from what we currently collect. Not only clinical outcomes or production figures, but also questions such as: does someone experience control over their own life? Are we doing the right things in the right way? Are we spending our resources wisely? And are we contributing to a resilient society?

We study how organisations and networks can monitor the four value dimensions at every level of the ecosystem — and how this information can actually lead to better decisions.

Concrete outcome: Measurement tools and dashboards that make the four value dimensions visible for professionals, leaders and policymakers.

Key question: How can we shift from reactive action to proactive investment in health — and who takes responsibility for what?

In the current system, investment usually takes place only when something has already gone wrong. Yet the greatest health gains can be achieved before people enter the healthcare system: through financial security, work, housing and social connectedness. This requires the involvement of actors that traditionally do not belong to the healthcare domain — such as employers, housing associations, schools and municipalities — but who nevertheless play an important role in shaping health.

We study how this broader coalition can jointly invest in prevention and early identification, and how to address the tension between short-term budget pressures and long-term health gains.

Concrete outcome: Collaboration models and investment frameworks for prevention in which both healthcare and non-healthcare actors can play their role.

Key question: How do we organise collaboration across the three levels of the ecosystem — and how do we ensure these levels reinforce one another?

Collaboration often fails not because of unwillingness, but because of systemic barriers: separate budgets, conflicting incentives and unclear responsibilities. Agreements made in direct contact between professionals can become stuck at organisational boundaries. What organisations want to achieve together may be blocked by financing rules.

We study the governance, financing and collaboration models needed to make the ecosystem function effectively across all three levels. A central question is: how can we create shared responsibility for health outcomes in a system that is organised around separate responsibilities?

Concrete outcome: Practical guidance for ecosystem governance, including governance models, collaboration agreements and escalation mechanisms.

Key question: How can we design financial incentives that reward collaboration and health gains — rather than production and fragmentation?

Current financing structures often reward the wrong things: more procedures, more referrals and more treatments. Investments in prevention and collaboration may generate clear benefits, but these often occur in another part of the system and sometimes only years later. This distribution challenge frequently blocks initiatives that have proven to be effective.

We study alternative financing models — such as population-based funding, shared savings and outcome-based contracting — that distribute economic value more fairly across the ecosystem. In doing so, we explicitly address the question: who invests, who benefits, and how can we bridge that gap?

Concrete outcome: Developed business models and contractual arrangements that ensure the benefits of collaboration are distributed fairly.

Key question: How can we ensure that what works locally can also work elsewhere in a sustainable way — without remaining dependent on temporary project funding?

The Netherlands has hundreds of promising initiatives that generate health gains. However, most remain stuck in the pilot phase: too small, too temporary and too dependent on enthusiastic individuals driving the initiative. The step from local success to structural embedding repeatedly proves to be the main bottleneck.

We study the conditions for successful scaling: which elements of an intervention are transferable, and which are context-specific? How can we create sustainable business models that are not dependent on temporary subsidies? And how can scaling take place without losing the local strengths that made the initiative successful in the first place?

Concrete outcome: Scaling frameworks and sustainable business models for proven effective health interventions.

You encounter a challenge in your work that you cannot solve alone. Collaboration stalls, an intervention does not work as expected, or you want to know whether what you are doing truly contributes to health gains. We are happy to think along with you — and if the question lends itself to research, we can turn it into a joint project.

You are a director, policymaker or project leader and want to accelerate the shift towards health gains. We support you in developing collaboration models, measuring value, or overcoming systemic barriers. Not as external consultants, but as research partners who think along with you and maintain a critical perspective.

You want to conduct research that matters: in a real-world practice, with real dilemmas. We offer supervision for graduation projects within our research lines. You will not only learn research skills but also gain insight into how an ecosystem functions and how to operate within it.

Are you working on similar themes and looking for partners for grant applications, publications or PhD projects? We collaborate with universities, universities of applied sciences and research institutes both nationally and internationally. The challenges are too large for any single organisation — let’s explore what we can achieve together.