Power and politics in a pandemic: Insights from Finnish health system leaders during COVID-19

Power and politics are both critical concepts to engage with in health systems and policy research, as they impact actions, processes, and outcomes at all levels in health systems. Building on the conceptualization of health systems as social systems, we investigate how power and politics manifested in the Finnish health system during COVID-19, posing the following research question: in what ways did health system leaders and experts experience issues of power and politics during COVID-19, and how did power and politics impact health system governance? We completed online interviews with health system leaders and experts (n = 53) at the local, regional, and national level in Finland from March 2021–February 2022. The analysis followed an iterative thematic analysis process in which the data guided the codebook. The results demonstrate that power and politics affected health system governance in Finland during COVID-19 in a multitude of ways. These can be summarized through the themes of credit and blame, frame contestation, and transparency and trust. Overall, political leaders at the national level were heavily involved in the governance of COVID-19 in Finland, which was perceived as having both negative and positive impacts. The politicization of the pandemic took health officials and civil servants by surprise, and events during the first year of COVID-19 in Finland reflect recurring vertical and horizontal power dynamics between local, regional, and national actors. The paper contributes to the growing call for power-focused health systems and policy research. The results suggest that analyses of pandemic governance and lessons learned are likely to leave out critical factors if left absent of an explicit analysis of power and politics, and that such analyses are needed to ensure accountability in health systems.

Pandemic preparedness and response regulations in Finland: Experiences and implications for post-COVID-19 reforms

The COVID-19 pandemic has plagued health systems in an unprecedented way and challenged the traditional ways to respond to epidemics. It has also revealed several vulnerabilities in countries' health systems and preparedness. In this paper we take the Finnish health system as an example to analyse how pre-COVID-19 preparedness plans, regulations, and health system governance were challenged by the pandemic and what lessons can be learned for the future. Our analysis draws on policy documents, grey literature, published research, and the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor. The analysis shows how major public health crises often reveal weaknesses in health systems, also in countries which have been ranked highly in terms of crisis preparedness. In Finland, there were apparent regulative and structural problems which challenged the health system response, but in terms of epidemic control, the results appear to be relatively good. The pandemic may have long-term effects on the health system functioning and governance. In January 2023, an extensive health and social services reform has taken place in Finland. The new health system structure needs to be adjusted to take on board the legacy of the pandemic and a new regulatory frame for health security should be considered.

"Local cooperation has been the cornerstone": facilitators and barriers to resilience in a decentralized health system during COVID-19 in Finland.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to elucidate facilitators and barriers to health system resilience and resilient responses at local and regional levels during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors utilized a qualitative research approach and conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 32) with study participants representing five different regions in Finland. Study participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. All study participants had been in management and civil servant positions during the first year of the pandemic, representing municipalities, municipalities' social and healthcare services, hospital districts and regional state administrative agencies. All interviews were completed remotely from April to December 2021 and the recordings transcribed verbatim. The authors coded the transcripts in ATLAS.ti 9.1 using directed content analysis. FINDINGS: The findings highlighted a wide range of localized responses to the pandemic in Finland. Facilitators to health system resilience included active networks of cooperation, crisis anticipation, transitioning into crisis leadership mode, learning how to incorporate new modes of operation, as well as relying on the competencies and motivation of health workforce. The authors found several barriers to health system resilience, including fragmented organization and management particularly in settings where integrated health care systems were not in place, insufficient preparedness to a prolonged crisis, lack of reliable information regarding COVID-19, not having plans in place for crisis communication, pandemic fatigue, and outflux of health workforce to other positions with better compensation and working conditions. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Factors affecting health system resilience are often studied at the aggregate level of a nation. This study offers insights into what resilient responses look like from the perspective of local and regional actors in a decentralized health system. The results highlight that local capacities and context matter greatly for resilience. The authors call for more nuanced analyses on health systems and health system resilience at the sub-national level.

Power and politics in a pandemic: Insights from Finnish health system leaders during COVID-19.

Power and politics are both critical concepts to engage with in health systems and policy research, as they impact actions, processes, and outcomes at all levels in health systems. Building on the conceptualization of health systems as social systems, we investigate how power and politics manifested in the Finnish health system during COVID-19, posing the following research question: in what ways did health system leaders and experts experience issues of power and politics during COVID-19, and how did power and politics impact health system governance? We completed online interviews with health system leaders and experts (n = 53) at the local, regional, and national level in Finland from March 2021 to February 2022. The analysis followed an iterative thematic analysis process in which the data guided the codebook. The results demonstrate that power and politics affected health system governance in Finland during COVID-19 in a multitude of ways. These can be summarized through the themes of credit and blame, frame contestation, and transparency and trust. Overall, political leaders at the national level were heavily involved in the governance of COVID-19 in Finland, which was perceived as having both negative and positive impacts. The politicization of the pandemic took health officials and civil servants by surprise, and events during the first year of COVID-19 in Finland reflect recurring vertical and horizontal power dynamics between local, regional, and national actors. The paper contributes to the growing call for power-focused health systems and policy research. The results suggest that analyses of pandemic governance and lessons learned are likely to leave out critical factors if left absent of an explicit analysis of power and politics, and that such analyses are needed to ensure accountability in health systems.

COVID-19 in Finland: Vaccination strategy as part of the wider governing of the pandemic.

Objectives: To analyze the vaccination strategy as part of wider public governing of the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland. Methods: The study provides a synthesis of vaccination strategy and health policy measures, as well as economic challenges, in the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland. The analysis is based on the systematic collection and reviewing of documents and reports. The review was complemented with relevant pandemic and vaccination monitoring data from Finland. Results: The vaccination strategy approved by the Finnish Government in December 2020 prioritised various risk groups and health and social care professionals attending to COVID-19 patients. The Government has purchased COVID-19 vaccines through the EU joint procurement programme. Vaccinations were organised by municipalities and offered free of charge. The Government recommends universal vaccinations, including foreign residents and undocumented migrants. In 2021, the Government adopted a revised COVID-19 hybrid strategy, which aimed to dismantle wide restrictions as a means to control the epidemic. Despite high vaccination coverage, the Omicron variant became widespread in the population. The economic consequences of the pandemic have been less severe than expected. Conclusions: In the approach to manage the pandemic, the vaccination strategy has a central role. Finland has probably benefitted from the EU joint vaccine procurement programme. The rapid launch of the vaccinations was supported by the existing vaccination capacity in municipalities. High vaccine coverage was seen as a key in opening society. Although a relatively high vaccination rate was not able to stop the spread of Omicron in late 2021, it has efficiently curbed serious cases and kept the death rate low.

How to Implement Digital Services in a Way That They Integrate Into Routine Work: Qualitative Interview Study Among Health and Social Care Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly boosted the implementation of digital services worldwide, it has become increasingly important to understand how these solutions are integrated into professionals' routine work. Professionals who are using the services are key influencers in the success of implementations. To ensure successful implementations, it is important to understand the multiprofessional perspective, especially because implementations are likely to increase even more. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine health and social care professionals' experiences of digital service implementations and to identify factors that support successful implementations and should be considered in the future to ensure that the services are integrated into professionals' routine work. METHODS: A qualitative approach was used, in which 8 focus group interviews were conducted with 30 health and social care professionals from 4 different health centers in Finland. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The resulting categories were organized under the components of normalization process theory. RESULTS: Our results suggested 14 practices that should be considered when implementing new digital services into routine work. To get professionals to understand and make sense of the new service, (1) the communication related to the implementation should be comprehensive and continuous and (2) the implementation process should be consistent. (3) A justification for the service being implemented should also be given. The best way to engage the professionals with the service is (4) to give them opportunities to influence and (5) to make sure that they have a positive attitude toward the service. To enact the new service into professionals' routine work, it is important that (6) the organization take a supportive approach by providing support from several easy and efficient sources. The professionals should also have (7) enough time to become familiar with the service, and they should have (8) enough know-how about the service. The training should be (9) targeted individually according to skills and work tasks, and (10) it should be diverse. The impact of the implementation on the professionals' work should be evaluated. The service (11) should be easy to use, and (12) usage monitoring should happen. An opportunity (13) to give feedback on the service should also be offered. Moreover, (14) the service should support professionals' work tasks. CONCLUSIONS: We introduce 14 practices for organizations and service providers on how to ensure sustainable implementation of new digital services and the smooth integration into routine work. It is important to pay more attention to comprehensive and continuing communication. Organizations should conduct a competence assessment before training in order to ensure proper alignment. Follow-ups to the implementation process should be performed to guarantee sustainability of the service. Our findings from a forerunner country of digitalization can be useful for countries that are beginning their service digitalization or further developing their digital services.

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.

Nordic responses to Covid-19: Governance and policy measures in the early phases of the pandemic.

This paper explores and compares health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the context of existing governance features. Content compiled in the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor combined with other publicly available country information serve as the foundation for this analysis. The analysis mainly covers early response until August 2020, but includes some key policy and epidemiological developments up until December 2020. Our findings suggest that despite the many similarities in adopted policy measures, the five countries display differences in implementation as well as outcomes. Declaration of state of emergency has differed in the Nordic region, whereas the emphasis on specialist advisory agencies in the decision-making process is a common feature. There may be differences in how respective populations complied with the recommended measures, and we suggest that other structural and circumstantial factors may have an important role in variations in outcomes across the Nordic countries. The high incidence rates among migrant populations and temporary migrant workers, as well as differences in working conditions are important factors to explore further. An important question for future research is how the COVID-19 epidemic will influence legislation and key principles of governance in the Nordic countries.

COVID-19 pandemic in Finland - Preliminary analysis on health system response and economic consequences.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe and analyze the impact of the coronavirus disease COVID-19 on health policy, social- and health system, and economic and financing system to prevent, treat, contain and monitor the virus in Finland. METHODS: This study provides early outcomes of health policy measures, social- and health system capacity as well as economic challenges in COVID-19 pandemic in Finland. This paper is based available documents and reports of different ministries and social, health and economic authorities collected online. This was complemented by other relevant pandemic data from Finland. RESULTS: The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the Finnish society has been unpredictable although it has not been as extensive and massive than in many other countries. As the situation evolved the Government took strict measures to stop the spread of the virus (e.g. Emergency Powers Act). Available information shows that the economic consequences will be drastic also in Finland, albeit perhaps less dramatic than in large industrial economies. CONCLUSIONS: Finland has transferred gradually to a "hybrid strategy", referring to a move from extensive restrictive measures to enhanced management of the epidemic. However, health system must be prepared for prospective setback. It is possible, that COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the development of digital health services and telemedicine in Finnish healthcare system.