Challenges to Global Health Emerging from the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic deepened challenges and opened new fronts where old and unresolved problems met with new problems triggered by the pandemic itself. There are several issues, problems, and challenges related to the post-COVID world we are in. This paper discusses some of them from different perspectives and elaborates on the future challenges and their solutions, which need to be tackled. Apart from the pre-existing problems, we are now also facing new military conflicts, interrupted supply chains, even in medicines supplies, as well as the worsening of climate change, further complicated by the military conflicts and a potential new global economic crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic left the world with many uncertainties about the future as there seem to be few answers ready to tackle the combination of the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with the pre-existing problems and challenges. Inequalities in terms of socio-economic differences and inequalities in health are driving disease burden, which will again be marked by the population aging and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Global collaboration and the joint search for solutions to global challenges have become inevitable. Research into behavioral determinants of health and health promotion are essential in understanding the sources of controversy regarding and resistance to proven public health interventions.

The need for a comprehensive and integrated approach to lung cancer policy in Europe.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. Europe's Beating Cancer Plan calls for a comprehensive approach to the disease in general but not specifically to lung cancer. Such a comprehensive approach, integrating efforts to strengthen anti-tobacco policies, early detection and underlying models of care, is sorely needed for lung cancer - particularly considering disruptions to care during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a recently published think piece, a multidisciplinary group of experts proposed four key policy priority areas. First, to reduce stigma and improve awareness of potential symptoms, there is a need to foster a better understanding of lung cancer - among the public and healthcare professionals. Second, opportunities for early detection should be enhanced, and the implementation of targeted screening through low-dose computed tomography should be encouraged as a complement to smoking cessation services. This complementarity should be recognised and built into joint policy proposals, with development and better integration of screening and smoking cessation programmes on the ground. Third, the socioeconomic inequalities underpinning disparities in outcomes in people with lung cancer must be addressed, with targeted approaches to overcome barriers to access Finally, the overall quality of lung cancer care must be improved, making multidisciplinary care available to all and ensuring survivorship is given due attention.

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19: A comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries.

Provider payment mechanisms were adjusted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our objective was to review adjustments for hospitals and healthcare professionals across 20 countries. We developed an analytical framework distinguishing between payment adjustments compensating income loss and those covering extra costs related to COVID-19. Information was extracted from the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) and classified according to the framework. We found that income loss was not a problem in countries where professionals were paid by salary or capitation and hospitals received global budgets. In countries where payment was based on activity, income loss was compensated through budgets and higher fees. New FFS payments were introduced to incentivize remote services. Payments for COVID-19 related costs included new fees for out- and inpatient services but also new PD and DRG tariffs for hospitals. Budgets covered the costs of adjusting wards, creating new (ICU) beds, and hiring staff. We conclude that public payers assumed most of the COVID-19-related financial risk. In view of future pandemics policymakers should work to increase resilience of payment systems by: (1) having systems in place to rapidly adjust payment systems; (2) being aware of the economic incentives created by these adjustments such as cost-containment or increasing the number of patients or services, that can result in unintended consequences such as risk selection or overprovision of care; and (3) periodically evaluating the effects of payment adjustments on access and quality of care.

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19: a comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries

Provider payment mechanisms were adjusted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our objective was to review adjustments for hospitals and healthcare professionals across 20 countries. We developed an analytical framework distinguishing between payment adjustments compensating income loss and those covering extra costs related to COVID-19. Information was extracted from the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) and classified according to the framework. We found that income loss was not a problem in countries where professionals were paid by salary or capitation and hospitals received global budgets. In countries where payment was based on activity, income loss was compensated through budgets and higher fees. New FFS payments were introduced to incentivize remote services. Payments for COVID-19 related costs included new fees for out- and inpatient services but also new PD and DRG tariffs for hospitals. Budgets covered the costs of adjusting wards, creating new (ICU) beds, and hiring staff. We conclude that public payers assumed most of the COVID-19-related financial risk. In view of future pandemics policymakers should work to increase resilience of payment systems by: (1) having systems in place to rapidly adjust payment systems;(2) being aware of the economic incentives created by these adjustments such as cost-containment or increasing the number of patients or services, that can result in unintended consequences such as risk selection or overprovision of care;and (3) periodically evaluating the effects of payment adjustments on access and quality of care.

Tackling the COVID-19 pandemic: Initial responses in 2020 in selected social health insurance countries in Europe☆.

Countries with social health insurance (SHI) systems display some common defining characteristics - pluralism of actors and strong medical associations - that, in dealing with crisis times, may allow for common learnings. This paper analyses health system responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in eight countries representative of SHI systems in Europe (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Switzerland). Data collection and analysis builds on the methodology and content in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) up to November 2020. We find that SHI funds were, in general, neither foreseen as major stakeholders in crisis management, nor were they represented in crisis management teams. Further, responsibilities in some countries shifted from SHI funds to federal governments. The overall organisation and governance of SHI systems shaped how countries responded to the challenges of the pandemic. For instance, coordinated ambulatory care often helped avoid overburdening hospitals. Decentralisation among local authorities may however represent challenges with the coordination of policies, i.e. coordination costs. At the same time, bottom-up self-organisation of ambulatory care providers is supported by decentralised structures. Providers also increasingly used teleconsultations, which may remain part of standard practice. It is recommended to involve SHI funds actively in crisis management and in preparing for future crisis to increase health system resilience.