What have European countries done to prevent the spread of COVID-19? Lessons from the COVID-19 Health system response monitor.

Although some European countries imposed measures that successfully slowed the transmission of Covid-19 during the first year of the pandemic, others struggled, either because they acted slowly or implemented measures ineffectively. In this paper we consider the European experience with public health measures designed to prevent transmission of COVID-19. Based on literature and country responses described in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor from March 2020 to December 2020, we consider some critical aspects of public health policy responses. These include the importance of public health capacity that can scale up surveillance and outbreak control, including effective testing and contract tracing, of clear messaging based on an understanding of human behaviour, policies that address the undesirable consequences of necessary measures, such as support for those isolating or unable to earn, and the ability to implement at pace and scale a major vaccine rollout. We conclude that for countries to be successful at preventing COVID-19 transmission, there is a need for a clear strategy with explicit goals and a whole systems approach to implementation.

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.

A comparison of 2020 health policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

This paper compares health policy responses to COVID-19 in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and United States of America (US) from January to November 2020, with the aim of facilitating cross-country learning. Evidence is taken from the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor, a joint initiative of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, the WHO Regional Office for Europe, and the European Commission, which has documented country responses to COVID-19 using a structured template completed by country experts. We show all countries faced common challenges during the pandemic, including difficulties in scaling-up testing capacity, implementing timely and appropriate containment measures amid much uncertainty and overcoming shortages of health and social care workers, personal protective equipment and other medical technologies. Country responses to address these issues were similar in many ways, but dissimilar in others, reflecting differences in health system organization and financing, political leadership and governance structures. In the US, lack of universal health coverage have created barriers to accessing care, while political pushback against scientific leadership has likely undermined the crisis response. Our findings highlight the importance of consistent messaging and alignment between health experts and political leadership to increase the level of compliance with public health measures, alongside the need to invest in health infrastructure and training and retaining an adequate domestic health workforce. Building on innovations in care delivery seen during the pandemic, including increased use of digital technology, can also help inform development of more resilient health systems longer-term.

In the wake of the pandemic: preparing for long COVID

This brief’s key messages are:COVID-19 can cause persistent ill-health. Around a quarter of people who have had the virus experience symptoms that continue for at least a month but one in 10 are still unwell after 12 weeks. This has been described by patient groups as “Long COVID”. Our understanding of how to diagnose and manage Long COVID is still evolving but the condition can be very debilitating. It is associated with a range of overlapping symptoms including generalized chest and muscle pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, and cognitive dysfunction, and the mechanisms involved affect multiple system and include persisting inflammation, thrombosis, and autoimmunity. It can affect anyone, but women and health care workers seem to be at greater risk. Long COVID has a serious impact on people’s ability to go back to work or have a social life. It affects their mental health and may have significant economic consequences for them, their families and for society. Policy responses need to take account of the complexity of Long COVID and how what is known about it is evolving rapidly. Areas to address include: The need for multidisciplinary, multispecialty approaches to assessment and management;Development, in association with patients and their families, of new care pathways and contextually appropriate guidelines for health professionals, especially in primary care to enable case management to be tailored to the manifestations of disease and involvement of different organ systems; The creation of appropriate services, including rehabilitation and online support tools; Action to tackle the wider consequences of Long COVID, including attention to employment rights, sick pay policies, and access to benefit and disability benefit packages; Involving patients both to foster self-care and self-help and in shaping awareness of Long COVID and the service (and research) needs it generates; and implementing well-functioning patient registers and other surveillance systems; creating cohorts of patients; and following up those affected as a means to support the research which is so critical to understanding and treating Long COVID.

What can we learn from Israel's rapid roll out of COVID 19 vaccination?

Israel has led the world in rolling out its COVID-19 vaccination program. This experience provides lessons that others can learn from. It is, however, necessary to consider some national specificities, including the small size of the country, its young population, and the political imperative to drive this program forward. Israel also has a number of other advantages, including a strong public health infrastructure. The lessons that can be learnt include the importance of coordinating delivery mechanisms with the inevitable prioritisation of groups within the population, timely deployment of a skilled cadre of health workers, a recognition that not everyone in the population shares in the benefits of digital connectedness, the need to reach out to disadvantaged groups, based on an understanding of the barriers that they face, and the importance of placing COVID-19 vaccination within a comprehensive response to the pandemic.