A cross-country comparison of Covid-19 containment measures and their effects on the epidemic curves.

BACKGROUND: European countries are still searching to eliminate or contain the Covid-19 pandemic. A variety of approaches have achieved different levels of success in limiting the spread of the disease early and preventing avoidable deaths. Governmental policy responses may explain these differences and this study aims to describe evidence about the effectiveness of containment measures throughout the course of the pandemic in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK). METHODS: The research approach adopted consisted of three steps: 1) Build a Containment Index (C.I.) that considers nine parameters to make an assessment on the strength of measures; 2) Develop dynamic epidemiological models for forecasting purposes; 3) Predict case numbers by assuming containment measures remain constant for a period of 30 days. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed that in the five European countries we compared, the use of different approaches definitively affected the effectiveness of containment measures for the Covid-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The evidence found in our research can be useful to inform policy makers' decisions when deciding to introduce or relax containment measures and their timing, both during the current pandemic or in addressing possible future health crises.

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.

The Structure and Financing of Health Care Systems Affected How Providers Coped With COVID-19.

Policy Points We compared the structure of health care systems and the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care providers in the United States, England, Germany, and Israel: systems incorporating both public and private insurers and providers. The negative financial effects on health care providers have been more severe in the United States than elsewhere, owing to the prevalence of activity-based payment systems, limited direct governmental control over available provider capacity, and the structure of governmental financial relief. In a pandemic, activity-based payment reverses the conventional financial positions of payers and providers and may prevent providers from prioritizing public health because of the desire to avoid revenue loss caused by declines in patient visits.

"Top-Three" health reforms in 31 high-income countries in 2018 and 2019: an expert informed overview.

BACKGROUND: High-income countries continuously reform their healthcare systems. Often, similar reforms are introduced concomitantly across countries. Although national policymakers would benefit from considering reform experiences abroad, exchange is limited. This paper provides an overview of health reform trends in 31 high-income countries in 2018 and 2019, i.e., before Covid-19. METHODS: Information was collected from national experts from the Health Systems and Policy Monitor network. Experts were asked to report on the three "top" national health reforms 2018 and 2019. In 2019, they provided an update of 2018 reforms. Reforms were assigned to one of 11 clusters and identified as one of seven different reform types. RESULTS: 81 reforms were reported in 28 countries in 2018. 44/81 went to four clusters: 'insurance coverage & resource generation', 'governance', 'healthcare purchasing & payment', and 'organisation of hospital care'. In 2019, 86 reforms in 30 countries were reported. 48/86 fell under 'organisation of primary & ambulatory care', 'governance', 'care coordination & specialised care', and 'organisation of hospital care'. Most 2018 reforms were reported ongoing in 2019; 27 implemented; seven abandoned. Health agency-led reforms were implemented most frequently, followed by central government-legislated reforms. CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers can leverage international experience of distinct reform approaches addressing similar challenges and similar approaches to address distinct problems. Such knowledge may help inspire or support future successful health reform processes.