Italian Health Care System: Methodology Suggestion for the Financial Equilibrium and Essential Level of Care

Business, Management and Economics
Research
ISSN(e): 2412-1770, ISSN(p): 2413-855X
Vol. 3, No. 4, pp: 40-51, 2017
URL: http://arpgweb.com/?ic=journal&journal=8&info=aims
*Corresponding Author
40
Academic Research Publishing Group
Italian Health Care System: Methodology Suggestion for the
Financial Equilibrium and Essential Level of Care
Valerio Brescia* Phd Student of the Department of Management and of the University of Turin, Italy
Christian Rainero Associate Professor of the Department of Management and of the University of Turin, Italy
Luigi Puddu Full Professor of the Department of Management University of Study of Turin, Italy
Vania Tradori Assistant Professor of the Department of Management University of Study of Turin, Italy
Silvana Secinaro Assistant Professor of the Department of Management University of Study of Turin, Italy
Alessandra Indelicato Assistant Professor of the Department of Management University of Study of Turin, Italy
Alessandro Migliavacca Phd Student of the Department of Management University of Study of Turin, Italy
Roberta Siliquini Full Professor of the Department of Public Health and Pediatrics at the University of Turin, Italy
Maria Martorana Resident in Public Health of the Department of Public Health and Pediatrics at the University of Turin,
Italy
Fabrizio Bert Assistant Professor of Public Health and Pediatrics at the University of Turin, Italy
Maria Rosaria Gualano Assistant Professor of the Department of Public Health and Pediatrics at the University of Turin, Italy
1. Introduction
Italian Regions are the accountable entities for healthcare policies. Besides policymaking activities, the Regions
are directly involved in management and financing of the Healthcare Public services and utilities. Italian Regions are
the accountable entities for healthcare policies: their activity is not limited to policymaking but includes, also, the
management and financing of the Healthcare Public Utilities and services. Public accounting gains attention: it
concerns the quantitative survey of public companies, considering financial, patrimonial and economic aspects in a
rational administrative setting based on planning, execution and control. Even at regulatory level, the attention is put
on the boundaries regarding the regional budget of the healthcare financial flows. Besides, it highlights incomes and
expenditures needed to support basic levels of healthcare and services achievement.
Abstract: Italian Regions are the accountable entities for healthcare policies: their activity is not limited to
policymaking but includes also management and financing of the Healthcare Public Utilities and services. A
first step will be the creation of a dataset of revenues and expenditures of the Healthcare sector. Second, the co-
financing policy will be analyzed using comparative grids of in/out-flows of each Region. Third, it will be taken
into account the regional fiscal coverage of the balance deficit. The sample is composed by the Italian Regions.
Last the analysis between our theoretical approach based on law and the real economic balance. Furthermore it
will be analyzed the National and Regional Healthcare System financing (in)-stability, highlighting current cash
flows, sources and investments using the “separation” of the Healthcare accounting items in the Balance Sheet.
Through chi-square test analysis and method of OLS the group of study look a possible relation be-tween
balance and respect of lea without finding a relationship. Latter, it will be represented an analysis of the National
Health Fund allocation to the Regions. It will be also conducted a critical analysis of the current allocation
formula and it will be proposed a simplified criterion of allocation.
Keywords: Health deficits; Health spending; Essential level of care.

Business, Management and Economics Research, 2017, 3(4): 40-51
41
The Regions present a role both in health setting and regarding balanced budget maintaining between incomes
and expenditures, differentiated in taxing specific voices of regional co-financing.
2. Health Authorities: Literature Review
2.1. The Rational Administration of the Health Management Based on the Balance
The reference conceptual model and the management model are based on a more general logic pattern of
rational administration. Management, defined as organized administration (Ferrero, 1980), is founded on a logic
pattern of rational administration, that originates from the same principle reflecting the companies’ traditional
distinction among companies, enterprises, delivery companies and company composed. We are referring to the
“capital’s acquisition-use” or the “wealth’s life” process (Zappa, 1927) or to the accumulation process, that is
measured in quantitative-monetary terms and is formally reflected in the balance and accounts’ instrument.
The rational administration considers, in joint terms, a time space analysis of administrative facts aimed to
provide quantitative-monetary information, collected in a logic and objective model that supports and guides the
decision-making. (Puddu, 2010).
In particular, from a temporal point of view, the rational administration is divided in classic chronological
phases, always interdependent among themselves, regarding the planning, the execution and the control. In each
phase, in-formational flows are produced. They are useful for decision making and are defined objectives in the
planning, results in the execution and variances in the control. Every action, to be rational, initially is ideated, then
implemented and, finally, evaluated, comparing the achievements to the established purposes.
2.2. Health System Financing and Different Kind of System
Health financing policy is an integral part of efforts to move towards UHC (universal health coverage), but for
health financing policy to be aligned with the pursuit of UHC, health system reforms need to be aimed explicitly at
improving coverage and the intermediate objectives linked to it, namely, efficiency, equity in health resource
distribution and transparency and accountability. The unit of analysis for goals and objectives must be the population
and health system as a whole. What matters is not how a particular financing scheme affects its individual members,
but rather, how it influences progress towards UHC at the population level. Concern only with specific schemes is
incompatible with a universal coverage approach and may even undermine UHC, particularly in terms of equity.
Conversely, if a scheme is fully oriented towards system level goals and objectives, it can further progress towards
UHC. Policy and policy analysis need to shift from the scheme to the system level Figure 1.(World Health
Organization, 2010). The literature on welfare systems, based on these five characteristics grouped the EU countries
into four main welfare models, which coincide roughly with equal number of geographical areas. The first area
includes the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland and Sweden), in which a more close to that universal model
"Pure", which relies on general taxes to finance and whose entry requirements are based on citizenship. Even the
Anglo-Saxon countries (Great Britain and Ireland) have historically made use of universalistic systems. However,
they have gradually differentiated with respect to the Scandinavian model by increasing the presence of insurance
type programs especially in social security individualized and directly financed by contributions paid by workers.
The third model in the European scene this is what characterizes the centre of countries (Germany, Austria, France,
Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg). This set of countries "continental" is derived historically from an insurance
type design (Bismarckian model), partially supplemented by welfare mechanisms. In it, it has provided performance
related contributory burden individually supported, with a total flow of funds where contributions on taxes prevail.
The fourth and last group of countries, this classification concerns the Mediterranean areas of Europe (Italy, Spain,
Portugal, Greece). These countries have welfare models defined as "mixed", because they are a hybrid of the
previous models. There are other political factors in social contexts of differentiated development have resulted in a
high degree of individualism in social spending functions, with a major disparity in performance in relation to the
category, the territory and the personal characteristics. The Italian System is based on an analysis of needs defined at
national and regional level. It covers all the needs of health without a direct contribution by the users. The Anglo
Saxon system is different; just some vulnerable users have right to the free assistance. Normally in the Anglo-Saxon
countries when people needed to see a doctor or had to enter a hospital, they either paid for the cost of the services
themselves or were treated through charity. For example in United Station have a complex patchworks where they
spend directly a percentage of their gross national product on the healthcare. There are five major direct financing
sources of healthcare: health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, patients and healthcare providers. As the 21st century
nears and the baby-boom population heads closer to retirement, the changes included in the Balanced Budget Act are
strictly a down payment in terms of closing Medicare’s funding gap (Medicare is the federal health insurance
program for people who are 65 or older, certain younger people with disabilities, and people with End Stage Renal
Disease). Economist Victor Fuchs estimates that “if the trends of the past decade or two continue until 2020, the
elderly’s health care consumption in that year will be approximately $25,000 per person (in 1995 dollars), compared
with $9200 in 1995.” The other lower program called Medicaid (Medicaid is a health insurance program for low
income individuals and those with disabilities) underscores the ambivalence of a society that continually struggles
with the question of which citizens deserve access to publicly financed medical care and under what conditions. On a
more positive note, Medicaid now provides health insurance to a larger population of poor persons than ever before,
reflecting the strength of a bullish economy and expanded criteria for eligibility. In Latino America except for
Brazil, Cuba and Costa Rica, achievement of universal health coverage has been hampered by inequitable health

42
financing and employment based social insurance schemes and segment the population in to three categories: 1) the
poor, unemployed, and the employed without social security 2) the salaried working population with social security
and 3) the rich with private insurance. Hence, health system has been looking to extend social protection to the
disenfranchised populations, namely poor people, non-salaried and self-employed workers, unemployed people and
rural citizens. In Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela have introduced
reforms to strengthen health system financing by pooling founds from many sources. These countries have used
government revenues to expand health insurance or financing coverage and health benefits for non-salaried workers
and for people who are poor. In the late 1970s China launched its agricultural reforms which initiated a decade of
continued economic growth and significant transformation of the Chinese society. The agricultural reforms altered
the peasants' incentives, weakened community organization and lessened the central government's control over local
communities. These changes largely caused the collapse of the widely acclaimed rural cooperative medical system in
China. Consequently China experienced a decreased supply of rural health workers, increased burden of illnesses,
disintegration of the three tier medical system, reduced primary health care, and an increased demand for hospital
medical services. More than ten years have elapsed since China changed its agricultural economic system and China
is still struggling to find an equitable, efficient and sustainable way of financing and organizing its rural health
services.
Figure-1. Health system goals and health financing policy objectives (Kutzin, 2008)
3. The Methodological Approach for the Empirical Research and Analysis
3.1. Research Objectives
The study is based on the previous research “Risk Management and healthcare: “separation” of revenues and
expenditure1
.We resumed the results of the previous work that includes:
1) Analyse the balance/imbalance to finance the National Healthcare System and the Regional System, underlining
the health financing flows, the sources and the current employments, obtained from the boundaries of the
healthcare into the regional balance;
2) Evaluate the different ways with whom occurs the sharing of the National Health Fund among the different
ordinary Statute Regions, the special administrative Regions (excluding Sicily) and Sicily;
3) Analyse critically the sharing formula and propose simplified and clear criterions.
4) At least the group of study would find a difference between the real results of each Italian region and the
methodologic suggested approach and the relationship with the realization of Essential Level of Assistance
(LEA) in based of the financial equilibrium.
3.2. Methodology
The method that the previous study uses includes a quantitative analysis about the efficiency of the National
Healthcare System and consists of the following elements that the group of study resume in the paragraph 4:
a) Collection of data regarding Italian Regions’ balance from different sources and with different modalities as:
• Final balance published on the Regions’ websites;
• Consultation of ministerial data;
1
published in the book Risk management: perspectives and open issues. A multi-disciplinary approach, McGraw-Hill Education, pp.248 – 265,
May 2016.

43
• Questionnaire administration to the Italian Regions;
b) Construction of a synthesis prospectus underlining incomes and expenditures of the regional healthcare;
c) Analysis of the health expenditures divided for functions;
d) Analysis of financing sources of regional healthcare;
e) Comparison between incomes and expenditures for each Region to determine surplus and deficit of regional
healthcare;
In this study afford a quantitative and qualitative study, it provides:
a) Critic analysis of the model currently adopted to finance the National Healthcare Service.
b) Statistical analysis and correlation between surplus/deficit of healthcare Italian regions and the respect of
Essential Assistance. The group of study uses chi-square test analysis and method of OLS “Ordinary least
Squares”
4. Italian Model
4.1. Financing Model of the Health Expenditure in Italy
The financing mechanism is one of the most complex and, at the same time, characterizing elements of the
health systems. It regulates the relation among the several levels of system government, as well as its equative rules,
and influences the laws’. Therefore, the complexity of the topic allows talking generally about “financing system”.
The term “financing system” (Bottari et al., 2013) concerns, implicitly, the “public health systems”, in which a
part of the resources coming from the taxation is addressed to guarantee the free or “subsidized” delivery of health
performances, in order to make the consumer opportunities essentially independent from the economic chances.
In the health systems in which the public intervention is prevalent or significant, administration systems of
performance prices and rates’ definition are also diffuse (for example, in Italy hospital admissions and specialist
performances). These prices and tariffs are integral and fundamental parts of the financing system. Without market
prices, this aspect becomes fundamental also in the economic trend’s analysis of health services allocating facilities,
insofar as it influences the incomes. A very important topic for systems in which the public intervention includes the
direct allocation of services, about this the Italian case is paradigmatic; insofar the role of the public healthcare
facility is central for the entire system.
The state law defined annually the health requirement, which is the overall level of the National Health Services
resources, to whom financing the State contributes. This requirement in its “indistinct” component (there is then a
“bound” tranche) is financed from the following sources:
1) Incomes of National Health Services’ facilities (health care fee and incomes derived from the intramoenia
activities of their workers), in a well-defined and crystallised amount secondary to an agreement between State
and Regions;
2) General taxes’ system of Regions: regional tax on productive activities – IRAP (in the revenue’s component
addressed to healthcare financing), and the regional personal income tax – IRPEF. Both the taxes are quantified
on the basis of revenues defined employing national basic rates, so reckoning without the major revenues
resulting from regional fiscal measures in case activated by every last Region;
3) Share of special administrative Regions and Trento and Bolzano autonomous provinces;
4) State’ budget: it finances healthcare requirement not covered by other financial resources essentially through the
share to value added tax (VAT) (allocated to common statute Regions), the excise duties on the fuels and the
healthcare national Fund (a tranche is addressed to Sicily, whereas the remaining part overall finances also other
health expenditures restricted to specific purposes).
Figure-1.2. The financial source of the healthcare facilities.

44
For every financial year, towards the level of the NHS funding for the reference year, the level of own revenues,
the expected tax revenues, and for the Sicilian region, the level of the regional share to the funding, the funding on
the state budget, on balance, is determined in the two components of the IVA share and of the national healthcare
Fund. The composition of the NHS funding is underlined in the so called “distributions” (requirement’s allocation to
each Regions and financial sources’ identification) proposed by the Minister of Health, on which it reaches an
agreement in State-Regions Conference and that are then accepted by Interministerial Committee for the Economic
Planning (CIPE).
The Regions allocate the financial resources to the facilities according to different parameters, in order to ensure
the supply of the services corresponding to the basic Level of healthcare.
The resources’ allocation to the facilities takes into account the passive mobility (the residents treated in
structures of other health facilities or Regions) and the active mobility (if persons outside the facility are treated).
Besides, the facilities are financed by the Regions, based on delivered services to inpatients (through the cost
expected by c.d. Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG), Homogeneous Grouping of Diagnosis2) or outpatients (through
the tariff of the specialist and diagnostic services).
4.2. The Boundaries of the Regional Budget: The Incomes and the Expenditures
Decision-making, that defines the funding of the National Health Service, is organized in a double level. On one
hand, the State defines the fundamental principles, named basic Level of healthcare (BLH), and ensures the
resources need-ed to their financing, consistent with public finance’s constraints and according to efficiency and
pertinence of the delivered services. On the other, the Regions organize their Regional Healthcare Services (SSR),
ensure the delivery of the services included in LEA and plan and manage the healthcare services in the area.
The preeminent aspect of this management model is the system’s capacity as a whole to aid and incentivize the
“virtuous” Regions, aimed at improving efficiency and efficacy of the LEA’s delivery. This process allows a
structural improvement of the budget balance, particularly important for the Regions in deficit, and it permit also to
maximize the health needs’ satisfaction compatible with the healthcare resources.
The legislative framework, over the last few years, permits the implementation of the administration model, in
the healthcare sector, able to pursue gradually and efficaciously the fore mentioned objectives.
Considering the fiscal federalism, the n. 118/2011 legislative decree, regarding the balances’ harmonization,
represents a further progress for the accountant proceeding in the health sector since 2012. With this legislative
decree, some regulations are included to guarantee an easy individuation of the health financing area through three
different measures. Firstly, there is the foundation of the Centralize Healthcare Management (GSA). Secondly, the
openness is considered regarding the cash flow of the health financing, through the starting of specific treasury
counts addressed to the health care. Thirdly, about the final balance, the Regions have to render and guarantee the
incomes and expenditures’ boundaries (for example, the correct individuation) related to the financing of the Health
Regional Service.
The boundaries allow immediate comparability between health incomes and expenditures of the regional
balance and the resources indicated in the records establishing the health regional requirement and identifying the
correlate financial sources. In this way an easy check is determined regarding the further resources made available
by the Regions for the current financial year of the Health Regional Service.
Specifically, the following income voices must be identified: the ordinary current health funding (included
active planned mobility), the additional current health funding, (included the additional funding aimed to the supply
of the higher levels of healthcare compared to LEA); the regional funding of the previous health deficit; the health
investment’s funding. The health facilities’ incomes and the health mobility’s (refunds to the Health Regional
Service relating to health services for citizens of other Regions) are added.
About the expenditures, the following voices are individuated: the current health expenditure for the LEA’s
funding (included the passive planned mobility); the additional health expenditure for the levels of healthcare higher
than LEA; the health expenditure for the funding of previous health deficit; the expenditure for the health
investment.
In each regional balance a framework comparing the fore mentioned incomes/expenditures is reported (Table
1).
Table-1. The boundaries of the regional balance (D.Lgs. 118/2011)
Expenditures Incomes
 Current health income for the LEA’s funding  The ordinary current health funding
 Additional health income for levels of healthcare higher than
LEA
 The additional current health funding
 Health income for the funding of the previous health deficit  The regional funding of the previous health deficit
 Income for health investment  Funding for health investment
 Own incomes
Source: our reworking on NSIS data.
This model does not meet the principles of the Accounts Department for Rational Administration, according to
which that the funding of the health services should be based on the services really produced with an efficient
mechanism in terms of resources for their production.

45
4.3. The Different Methodologies for the Sharing of the Health National Fund: Current
Statute Regions, Special Administrative Regions and Sicily Region.
The current methodology for the sharing of the Health National Fund (HNF) uses as unique parameters, for the
assignment of the tranches to the different autonomous Regions and Provinces, the resident population, the different
age-structure and the mortality rate (Rice and Smith, 1999). The sharing of the funds to the Regions results in the
mechanism of “weighted per capita tranche”. This articulate collection of criterions is adopted to the population of
the Regions and provides the funding, assigned by the State to each of them for the LEA’s supply.
It is called “weighted” per capita tranche method because every citizen does not weigh “one” (as in the “dry per
capita tranche” method), but he carries weigh differing from other one and depending to criterions used for the
sharing. The resident population’s size is the guide principle of the sharing (that is greater resources correspond to
greater population), but this value, for the different basic levels of healthcare, is modulated, weighed, time after time,
according to the agreements among the Regions (Zocchetti, 2012). The consequence is a “weighed” regional
population (inferior, equal, superior to the real population based on how the adopted weighing criterions play) that
defines the sharing tranche of each Region to FSN.
The mechanism of “ weighted per capita tranche” , as adopted in Italy, consists of two moments: firstly every
basic level of healthcare to finance is identified (and the fund relative tranches to whom assigned); secondly, for
each LEA identified, the criterions to apply for the Regions’ populations (the weights) are defined (Cislaghi and
Zocchetti, 2012). The health facilities are financed by the Regions on the base of the per capita tranche corrected
according to the resident population’s characteristics, the criterions indicated in 662/93 law, that regulates the money
transfer from the National Health Fund to the Regions. With the agreement reached on 8th August 2000, during the
State Regions Conference, the rules of the internal Stability Pact were reviewed, regarding the Regions, the
provinces and the municipalities (Giannoni, 2015).
The point number 16 of the agreement expect that “[...] the Regions covenant to review the weighting
parameters included in the Article 34 of the law 662/96” based on the agreement about the basic levels of healthcare.
In this context the funding based on per capita tranche has to guarantee a balance between available resources and
the supply of appropriate health services through the LEA (Costa, 2010).
Currently, the sharing among the Regions occurs in different way for type of Regions (and Autonomous
Provinces):
1) The ordinary statute Regions compete for the specific sharing on the basis of the following formula
∑
∑ ( ) ( ) ( )
In which the parameters are the following:
(a) Resident population: ∑
(b) Smoothing fiscal capacity:
∑ ( )
(c)Healthcare requirement:
( )
(d) Geographical dimension:
( )
2) The special administrative Regions (excluding Sicily) and the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano
provide the healthcare services, using their aimed tributes (share of IVA, IRAP e Additional Regional IRPEF).
3) Sicily benefits from the sharing for the 50.89% of its requirement (as into point 1), whereas for the remaining
49.11% used its aimed tributes (as in point 2).
The high and persistent imbalance in the Regional fiscal capacities (imbalance existing between the per capita
expenditures and incomes’ levels in the different areas) implied the need of massive huge coordination transfers. The
necessary resources are financed by a coordination fund without purpose restriction, sustained by the general
taxation system. This system should guarantee the uniform supply of the LEA. The healthcare requirement is the
overall level of the National Healthcare Service resources to whom financing takes part the State.
4.3.1. Sample
The reference sample is represented by the Italian Regions (15 ordinary statute Region and 5 special
administrative Regions) and by two Autonomous Provinces (Trento and Bolzano). The data in analysis refer to 2013
due to the unavailability of latest revised data regarding the regional healthcare funding.
5. The Results of the Empirical Analysis
The need of pursuing efficacy and efficiency should be included in a rational administration’s context that starts
from the needs to satisfy and from the available financial resources. The observation point, and so the level of
resources use, influences the dynamics of resources consumption. The point of view is the grade the pattern of
utilization of the resources that influence the dynamics of the consumption of resources (Volpatto, 1988).
In details, the financial sources of the regional health for 2013 have been analysed and elaborated.
One first reworked version concerns the health expenditures sustained by the Regions (Table 2), and reveals a
significant coherence with the incoming financial amount (Table 3). Particularly, based on the incomes’ analysis, a

46
discrepancy emerges between the special administrative Regions, provided with autonomies, and the ordinary statute
Regions. The results show a variegated and diversified distribution of funding secondary to Regions and regional
characteristics. The differences are considerable, even considering Regions apparently homogeneous: for example,
comparing Sardinia and Sicily, the variance is significant regarding not only the need’ distribution, but also the
aspects of taxing and normative autonomy.
Finally, an incongruity regarding the effective regional needs results is demonstrated by the surplus and deficit’s
results (Table 4).
Table-2. The regional healthcare expenditure (2013 - €/millions – for value)
Regions
Purchases of
goods (3)
Drug purchases
Purchase of
health services
(4)
Purchase of
non-health
services (5)
Leases and
rentals
Health personnel
(6)
Trained
individuals (7)
Lombardia 2.131 11,49% 1.293 6,97% 7.074 38,15% 1.235 6,66% 161 0,87% 4.577 24,68% 465 2,51%
Lazio 1.408 12,80% 901 8,19% 3.898 35,43% 783 7,12% 82 0,75% 2.585 23,49% 220 2,00%
Campania 1.219 12,59% 861 8,90% 3.142 32,46% 640 6,61% 55 0,57% 2.605 26,91% 201 2,08%
Veneto 1.217 13,53% 583 6,48% 2.783 30,95% 750 8,34% 125 1,39% 2.516 27,98% 226 2,51%
Emilia
Romagna
1.207 13,66% 533 6,03% 2.543 28,78% 711 8,05% 71 0,80% 2.758 31,22% 235 2,66%
Sicilia 1.050 12,15% 812 9,40% 2.702 31,27% 398 4,61% 46 0,53% 2.598 30,06% 243 2,81%
Piemonte 1.275 15,30% 609 7,31% 2.348 28,18% 527 6,32% 108 1,30% 2.552 30,63% 281 3,37%
Toscana 1.195 16,84% 414 5,84% 1.632 23,00% 660 9,30% 69 0,97% 2.343 33,02% 177 2,49%
Puglia 1.155 16,40% 622 8,83% 2.273 32,28% 468 6,65% 39 0,55% 1.836 26,07% 147 2,09%
Calabria 462 13,72% 313 9,30% 912 27,09% 159 4,72% 29 0,86% 1.076 31,96% 106 3,15%
Sardegna 518 15,91% 300 9,22% 742 22,80% 256 7,86% 36 1,11% 1.107 34,01% 78 2,40%
Liguria 443 13,94% 221 6,96% 854 26,88% 274 8,62% 33 1,04% 1.013 31,89% 85 2,68%
Marche 475 17,20% 239 8,65% 638 23,10% 159 5,76% 27 0,98% 922 33,38% 69 2,50%
Friuli V.G. 399 15,87% 190 7,56% 492 19,57% 289 11,50% 27 1,07% 881 35,04% 67 2,67%
Abruzzo 376 15,93% 220 9,32% 569 24,11% 177 7,50% 27 1,14% 714 30,25% 51 2,16%
Umbria 275 16,53% 131 7,87% 317 19,05% 145 8,71% 17 1,02% 576 34,62% 34 2,04%
P.A. Bolzano 152 12,91% 45 3,82% 256 21,75% 60 5,10% 8 0,68% 540 45,88% 52 4,42%
P.A. Trento 139 11,93% 68 5,84% 363 31,16% 88 7,55% 7 0,60% 384 32,96% 37 3,18%
Basilicata 164 15,88% 80 7,74% 263 25,46% 64 6,20% 7 0,68% 353 34,17% 24 2,32%
Molise 89 13,46% 43 6,51% 231 34,95% 40 6,05% 2 0,30% 188 28,44% 10 1,51%
Valle d'Aosta 35 12,64% 18 6,50% 57 20,58% 22 7,94% 7 2,53% 102 36,82% 12 4,33%
Total 15.384 13,79% 8.496 7,61% 34.089 30,55% 7.905 7,08% 983 0,88% 32.226 28,88% 2.820 2,53%
Regions
General
administrative
expenses
Other (8) Intraomenia Taxes
Leases and
rentals
Extraordinary
costs (9)
Total
Lombardia 452 2,40% 524 2,83% 196 1,06% 387 2,09% 7 0,04% 42 0,23% 18.544 100%
Lazio 178 1,62% 348 3,16% 98 0,89% 221 2,01% 105 0,95% 176 1,60% 11.003 100%
Campania 168 1,74% 403 4,16% 43 0,44% 234 2,42% 19 0,20% 89 0,92% 9.679 100%
Veneto 186 2,07% 174 1,93% 96 1,07% 209 2,32% 43 0,48% 85 0,95% 8.993 100%
Emilia Romagna 211 2,39% 172 1,95% 105 1,19% 224 2,54% 31 0,35% 34 0,38% 8.835 100%
Sicilia 198 2,29% 244 2,82% 39 0,45% 222 2,57% 48 0,56% 42 0,49% 8.642 100%
Piemonte 186 2,23% 79 0,95% 98 1,18% 220 2,64% 32 0,38% 18 0,22% 8.333 100%
Toscana 167 2,35% 101 1,42% 80 1,13% 189 2,66% 29 0,41% 39 0,55% 7.095 100%
Puglia 128 1,82% 103 1,46% 29 0,41% 153 2,17% 13 0,18% 76 1,08% 7.042 100%
Calabria 89 2,64% 67 1,99% 9 0,27% 87 2,58% 25 0,74% 33 0,98% 3.367 100%
Sardegna 70 2,15% 43 1,32% 13 0,40% 33 1,01% 4 0,12% 55 1,69% 3.255 100%
Liguria 54 1,70% 58 1,83% 35 1,10% 84 2,64% 3 0,09% 20 0,63% 3.177 100%
Marche 62 2,24% 55 1,99% 32 1,16% 77 2,79% 1 0,04% 6 0,22% 2.762 100%

47
Friuli V.G. 49 1,95% 15 0,60% 22 0,88% 68 2,70% - 0,00% 15 0,60% 2.514 100%
Abruzzo 60 2,54% 67 2,84% 15 0,64% 59 2,50% 1 0,04% 24 1,02% 2.360 100%
Umbria 48 2,88% 61 3,67% 11 0,66% 45 2,70% 2 0,12% 2 0,12% 1.664 100%
P.A. Bolzano 21 178% 3 0,25% 1 0,08% 36 3,06% - 0,00% 3 0,25% 1.177 100%
P.A. Trento 21 1,80% 15 1,29% 8 0,69% 31 2,66% - 0,00% 4 0,34% 1.165 100%
Basilicata 23 2,23% 14 1,36% 4 0,39% 29 2,81% - 0,00% 8 0,77% 1.033 100%
Molise 17 2,57% 13 1,97% 3 0,45% 15 2,27% 3 0,45% 7 106,00% 661 100%
Valle d'Aosta 9 3,25% 1 0,36% 3 1,08% 9 3,25% - 0,00% 2 0,72% 277 100%
Total 2.397 2,15% 2.560 2,29% 940 0,84% 2.632 2,36% 366 0,33% 780 0,70% 111.578 100%
Table-3. The financing sources of the regional healthcare
Regions
Own
Revenues
(10)
IRAP
Additional
regional
tax
V.A.T. and
excise taxes on
fuel
FSN
Regions Co-
participations
with the
special status
Total
Ordinary Statute Regions
Lombardia 1.815.118 7.097.818 1.831.164 7.698.863 - - 18.442.963
Lazio 727.815 3.646.398 927.132 4.937.980 - - 10.239.325
Campania 324.541 1.334.328 545.586 7.644.617 - - 9.849.072
Veneto 801.040 2.791.017 789.656 4.708.402 - - 9.090.115
Emilia Romagna 1.137.635 2.577.932 782.484 4.214.014 - - 8.712.064
Piemonte 636.735 2.161.013 745.098 4.750.074 - - 8.292.920
Toscana 774.416 1.941.668 603.683 3.915.316 - - 7.235.083
Puglia 284.910 926.126 415.381 5.488.581 - - 7.114.999
Calabria 114.772 107.994 182.961 3.056.834 - - 3.462.562
Liguria 288.785 749.072 282.368 1.821.351 - - 3.141.576
Marche 233.621 660.035 225.745 1.801.115 - - 2.920.516
Abruzzo 197.830 444.509 164.985 1.682.361 - - 2.489.684
Umbria 206.631 330.610 132.687 1.090.117 - - 1.760.045
Basilicata 108.061 64.343 61.473 868.596 - - 1.102.473
Molise 100.267 42.005 35.918 467.125 - - 645.315
Total (Ordinary Statute) 7.752.177 24.874.867 7.726.321 54.145.347 - - 94.498.713
Special Status Regions
Sardegna 66.652 644.193,36 198.422 - - 2.005.045,84 2.914.313
Friuli Venezia Giulia 228.388 766.690,60 215.953 - - 1.192.628,76 2.403.660
P.A,. Trento 87.745 348.549,16 90.757 - - 464.714,95 991.766
P.A. Bolzano 101.483 394.819,55 94.709 - - 365.166,31 956.178
Valle d'Aosta 24.215 86.582,09 23.308 - - 112.270,41 246.376
Total (Special Status ) 508.483 2.240.834,77 623.149 - - 4.139.826,27
7.512.293,0
3
Sicily regions
Sicilia 303.621 1.512.894,13 488.051 - 2.235.167,56 4.236.387,89 8.776.122
Total Italy 8.564.281 28.628.596,2 8.837.521 54.145.347,24 2.235.167,56 8.376.214,16
110.787.12
7,15

48
Figure-2. The Healthcare regional expenditures (2013)
Figure-3. The healthcare regional incomes (2013).
8%
27%
8%
57%
Ordinary Statute Regions
Own resources
IRAP
Additional Regional Tax on Personal Income IRPEF
Copartecipation of Regions VAT and excise taxes on
fuel
7%
30%
8%
55%
Speciale Status Regions (except Sicilia)
Own resources
IRAP
Copartecipation of the Regions with the Special Status
3%
17%
6%
48%
26%
Sicilia
Own resources
IRAP
Copartecipation of the Regions with the Special Status
National Helth Found
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Billions/€
Extraordinary costs Purpose financial costs Duties and Taxes
Intraomenia Other General and amministrative expenses
Nonmedical personnel Health care staff member Use of third party assets
Purchase of other services Purhese of health related services Purchase of drags
Purchase of goods

49
Referring particularly to incomes of the tax component IVA and petrol excise, the 40% of the 2013 national overall
revenues was addressed to finance the National Healthcare Service.
Table-4. The Surplus/deficit of the regional healthcare (2013 - €/millions – for value).
Regions
Total Revenue
(A)
Total Expenditure
(B)
Economic Surplus
(Balance Deficit)
[A-B]
Campania 9.849.072 9.679.985 169.087
Marche 2.920.516 2.761.822 158.694
Toscana 7.235.083 7.094.687 140.396
Sicilia 8.776.122 8.640.044 136.078
Abruzzo 2.489.684 2.360.251 129.433
Veneto 9.090.115 8.992.917 97.198
Umbria 1.760.045 1.665.016 95.029
Calabria 3.462.562 3.367.832 94.730
Puglia 7.114.999 7.041.489 73.510
Basilicata 1.102.473 1.034.824 67.649
Molise 645.315 662.741 (17.426)
Valle d'Aosta 246.376 276.793 (30.417)
Liguria 3.141.576 3.175.590 (34.014)
Piemonte 8.292.920 8.333.957 (41.037)
Lombardia 18.442.963 18.542.584 (99.621)
Friuli Venezia Giulia 2.403.660 2.514.709 (111.049)
Emilia Romagna 8.712.064 8.835.595 (123.531)
P.A. Trento 991.766 1.165.079 (173.313)
P.A. Bolzano 956.178 1.176.224 (220.046)
Sardegna 2.914.313 3.256.405 (342.092)
Lazio 10.239.325 11.002.285 (762.960)
Total 110.787.127 111.580.829 (793.702)
Everage Value 5.275.577 5.313.373 (37.795)
Table-5. The Surplus/deficit of the regional healthcare and Lea (2013 - €/millions – for value).
N Regions
Number lea satisfied
(Essential Level of Care)
Economic Surplus
(Balance Deficit) 2013
Analysis Tab 4
Economic Surplus
(Balance Deficit)
Data Agenas 2013
1 Abruzzo* 152 129.433 36.175
2 Basilicata* 146 67.649 (3.401)
3 Calabria* 136 94.730 (30.616)
4 Campania* 136 169.087 19.262
5 Emilia Romagna 204 (123.531) 2.348
6 Lazio* 152 (762.960 (609.888)
7 Liguria 187 (34.014) (91.345)
8 Lombardia 187 (99.621) 10.189
9 Marche 191 158.694 37.532
10 Molise* 140 (17.424) (51.382)
11 Piemonte 201 (41.037) (40.742)
12 Puglia* 134 73.510 (39.561)
13 Sicilia 165 136.078 6.017
14 Toscana 214 140.396 2.847
15 Umbria 179 95.029 24.619
16 Veneto 190 97.198 25.511
Legend: * (respect a range between 130 and 160 LEA) – bold font (respect more of 160 LEA)
Source: our reworking on AGENAS data

50
6. Conclusions
Data demonstrate a significant difference between Regions Economic financial results in our analysis and in the
reporting of the Minister of health through Agenas (table 5). It demonstrates how the theoretical application of the
Health system in Italy gives a different result to the real situation. The boundary of the revenues and expenditures is
based on a specific way to allocation of resources, but each region could manage the resources to cover over
expenditures and debt; it generates a variation and a risk management in the control of National Supervision.
In our Analysis, the data demonstrate significant differences between Regions in 2013: there are Regions with
great surplus (ex. Campania), Regions with great deficit (ex. Lazio) and Regions in substantial balance (ex. Molise).
Overall, the regional surplus amounts to €/thousands 1.161.803 and are made almost completely by ordinary
statute south-central Regions, apart from Veneto Region.
The regional deficit amounts to €/thousands 1.955.505 and are made, apart from Lazio Region, by the special
administrative Regions (Sardinia, Friuli Venezia Giulia) and by the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano.
The medium value of the surplus is €/thousands -37.795. Over the medium value there are Abruzzo, Basilicata,
Calabria, Campania, Liguria, Marche, Molise, Puglia, Sicilia, Toscana, Umbria, Valle d'Aosta, and Veneto Regions.
Below the medium value there are Emilia Romagna, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Lombardy, Piedmont, Sardinia
Regions and the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano.
The real situation demonstrates a different balance. The data show significant differences between Regions in
2013: there are Regions with great surplus (ex. Marche), Regions with great deficit (ex. Lazio) and Regions in
substantial balance (ex. Emilia Romagna).
Considering the comparison between data available (table 5) according the our first analysis the health regional
balance have a positive amount (€/thousands 83.217) than the real situation with a negative amount (€/thousands –
702.435)
In the both situation, we analysed, through chi-square test analysis and method of OLS “Ordinary least
Squares”, a possible relation between balance and respect of lea in each region. We do not find a relation; it
highlights how different health contexts have a possibility to respect the different Essential Level of Care. It could
depend to a management and organization system. Regions highlight in bold font respect at least more than 160 Lea
and they are defaulting, in *symbol the Regions that respect a range between 130 and 160 LEA with some notes.
Regions are defaulting than 7 are defaulting with some failings, on realignment plan objectives, vaccinations for
MPR and lea of assistance housing for the elderly. We could not analysis all the regions (some special status regions
like Valle d’Aosta) because they are not obliged to analysis the boundary between expenditure and revenues and the
respect of lea.
The detailed steps of this study refer to the boundaries’ analysis also for 2014 and 2015, through data
availability, and to an efficacy and efficiency’s analysis for the different regional Healthcare Services, with relation
to the state of health and the healthcare need in every Region.
References
Bottari, C., Foglietta, F. and Vandelli, L. (2013). Welfare e servizio sanitario. quali strategie per superare la crisi,
Maggioli Editore, Bologna.
Brescia, V., Secinaro, S., Rainero, C., Biancone, P.P., Gualano, M.R., Bert, F. (2016), L'accreditamento delle
strutture sanitarie: aspetti gestionali e legislativi. Il caso della regione Piemonte, Sanità Pubblica & Privata.
Brescia, V., Rainero, C., Puddu., L., Gualano., M.R., Bert, F. (2017). La formazione come strumento di management
in sanità, Organizzazione & Sviluppo.
Bert, F., Brescia, V., Gualano., M.R.,Puddu., L., Rainero, C. (2016). Aziende sanitarie e gestione del
"cambiamento": la formazione del personale, Sanità Pubblica e Privata.
Cislaghi, C. and Zocchetti, C. (2012). Il finanziamento pro capite regionale: attenti a interpretarlo!, regional pro
capite funding: how to unscramble it. Epidemiol. Prev., 36(3-4): 221–23.
Costa, G. (2010). Valutazione delle politiche pubbliche e delle performance delle amministrazioni pubbliche: il caso
della sanità e della salute. presented at the conferenza nazionale di statistica, Roma.
Ferrero, G. (1980). Impresa E Management, Giuffrè, Torino.
Giannoni, M. (2015). Scelte individuali e collettive di tutela della salute, criteri di riparto delle risorse del servizio
sanitario regionale in un contesto di federalismo: proposta di un modello per la regione umbria. presented at
the convegno nazionale Aies, Genova.
Kutzin, J. (2008). Health financing for universal coverage and health system performance: concepts and implications
for policy. Bull World Health Organ, 91(8): 602–11.
Puddu, L. (2010). Il processo di accumulazione del capitale, l’analisi funzionale del management, l’amministrazione
razionale e la classificazione delle aziende: razionalità della rilevanza e valori etici, Egea, Milano.
Puddu, L., Bilardo, S., Delfino, F., Di Russo, D., Rainero, C., (2013). La riforma della contabilità e della finanza
pubblica.
Puddu, L., Rainero, C., Tradori V., Secinaro S., Indelicato A., Migliavacca A., Brescia V. (2016).A multi-
disciplinary approach, published in the book Risk management: perspectives and open issues. McGraw-Hill
Education, pp.248 – 265.
Rainero., C et al. (2016). I processi amministrativi e i percorsi attuativi di certificabilità (PAC) delle aziende
sanitarie, Giappichelle, Torino.

51
Rice, N. and Smith, P. (1999). Approaches to capitation and risk adjustment in health care: an international survey.
university of york, Centre For Health Economics York.
Volpatto, O. (1988). Essenza del controllo direzionale e correlati aspetti socio-organizzativi, in aa.vv.,
l’aziendasanità, Francoangeli, Milano.
World Health Organization (2010). The world health report, health systems financing, the path to universal
coverage.
Zappa, G. (1927). Tendenze nuove negli studi di ragioneria: discorso, Istituto editoriale scientifico, Milano.
Zocchetti, C. (2012). Il riparto del fondo sanitario tra le regioni. Stat. Soc., 1(3): 27-29.

Italian Health Care System: Methodology Suggestion for the Financial Equilibrium and Essential Level of Care

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Italian Health Care System: Methodology Suggestion for the Financial Equilibrium and Essential Level of Care (20)

More from Business, Management and Economics Research (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Italian Health Care System: Methodology Suggestion for the Financial Equilibrium and Essential Level of Care