Scholarlink

Background <p>In conventional healthcare systems, nursing services are often integrated into broader institutional or physician billing, limiting visibility of nursing contributions. Direct reimbursement provides itemized compensation, potentially increasing recognition. Iran’s 2007 Nursing Services Tariff and Adjustment of Nursing Fees Act introduced a tariff-based direct reimbursement model. This study explores its observed effects, comparing it to systems in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Japan, and Norway (selected by Beveridge vs. Bismarck typologies).</p> Methods <p>A mixed qualitative-comparative design used the PRISM framework for implementation evaluation. Semi-structured interviews with 12 Iranian stakeholders (6 experts, 6 frontline nurses; snowball recruitment; guide on request) underwent reflexive thematic analysis, achieving saturation after 9 interviews. Cross-national analysis applied Walt and Gilson’s Policy Triangle to barriers, with scoping reviews, SWOT, and quantitative triangulation (e.g., salary/satisfaction metrics).</p> Results <p>Iran’s tariff-based model appears to increase visibility and recognition of nursing work compared with bundled payment or salaried systems. Two primary themes emerged: Professional Development (identity, satisfaction, sense of justice) and Health System Implementation Considerations (observed resource allocation and service organization). These findings are descriptive and contextual, without implying causal effects or universal generalizability.</p> Conclusion <p>The Iranian model provides context-specific insights on itemized nursing reimbursement and observed implementation experiences. Future research may explore longitudinal workforce outcomes, cost implications, and potential adaptation in diverse healthcare systems, while remaining within the limits of the study’s qualitative and secondary-source evidence.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Reforming nursing reimbursement: direct payment models under Iran’s Nursing Service Act in a global context

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月12日

查看全文
  • Nasim Hatefimoadab,
  • Maliheh Talebi Jaghargh,
  • Abbas Abbaszadeh,
  • Simin Sharafi,
  • Toktam Kianian,
  • Milad Rezaiye,
  • Abbas Ebadi

摘要

Background

In conventional healthcare systems, nursing services are often integrated into broader institutional or physician billing, limiting visibility of nursing contributions. Direct reimbursement provides itemized compensation, potentially increasing recognition. Iran’s 2007 Nursing Services Tariff and Adjustment of Nursing Fees Act introduced a tariff-based direct reimbursement model. This study explores its observed effects, comparing it to systems in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Japan, and Norway (selected by Beveridge vs. Bismarck typologies).

Methods

A mixed qualitative-comparative design used the PRISM framework for implementation evaluation. Semi-structured interviews with 12 Iranian stakeholders (6 experts, 6 frontline nurses; snowball recruitment; guide on request) underwent reflexive thematic analysis, achieving saturation after 9 interviews. Cross-national analysis applied Walt and Gilson’s Policy Triangle to barriers, with scoping reviews, SWOT, and quantitative triangulation (e.g., salary/satisfaction metrics).

Results

Iran’s tariff-based model appears to increase visibility and recognition of nursing work compared with bundled payment or salaried systems. Two primary themes emerged: Professional Development (identity, satisfaction, sense of justice) and Health System Implementation Considerations (observed resource allocation and service organization). These findings are descriptive and contextual, without implying causal effects or universal generalizability.

Conclusion

The Iranian model provides context-specific insights on itemized nursing reimbursement and observed implementation experiences. Future research may explore longitudinal workforce outcomes, cost implications, and potential adaptation in diverse healthcare systems, while remaining within the limits of the study’s qualitative and secondary-source evidence.