Kyrgyzstan: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Kyrgyz health system reviews developments in its organization and governance, financing, provision of services, health reforms and health system performance. A mandatory health insurance is in place, with the Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (MHIF) under the Ministry of Health acting as single public payer for almost all hospitals and providers of primary care. The benefits package of publicly covered services is defined in the State-Guaranteed Benefits Programme (SGBP). However, many services require co-payments and in 2019 only 69% of the population was covered by mandatory health insurance. Health expenditure per capita is one of the lowest in the WHO European Region, due to the country's small GDP per capita. Private spending, almost entirely in the form of out-of-pocket expenditure and including informal payments, accounted for 46.3% of health expenditure in 2019. Financial protection is undermined by low levels of public spending for health, resulting in financial hardship for people using health services. While there is a well-developed network of health facilities, the geographical distribution of health workers is uneven and there is an overall shortage of family doctors. Access to health services remains a challenge, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. While improvements have been made in recent years, communicable and noncommunicable diseases still pose a major problem and life expectancy prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was one of the lowest in the WHO European Region.

A comparison of health system responses to COVID-19 in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania in 2020.

This article compares the health system responses to COVID-19 in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania from February 2020 until the end of 2020. It explores similarities and differences between the three countries, building primarily on the methodology and content compiled in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM). We find that all three countries entered the COVID-19 crisis with common problems, including workforce shortages and underdeveloped and underutilized preventive and primary care. The countries reacted swiftly to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, declaring a state of emergency in March 2020 and setting up new governance mechanisms. The initial response benefited from a centralized approach and high levels of public trust but proved to be only a short-term solution. Over time, governance became dominated by political and economic considerations, communication to the public became contradictory, and levels of public trust declined dramatically. The three countries created additional bed capacity for the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the first wave, but a greater challenge was to ensure a sufficient supply of qualified health workers. New digital and remote tools for the provision of non-COVID-19 health services were introduced or used more widely, with an increase in telephone or online consultations and a simplification of administrative procedures. However, the provision and uptake of non-COVID-19 health services was still affected negatively by the pandemic. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed pre-existing health system and governance challenges in the three countries, leading to a large number of preventable deaths.

COVID-19 pandemic: health impact of staying at home, social distancing and 'lockdown' measures-a systematic review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: To systematically review the evidence published in systematic reviews (SR) on the health impact of staying at home, social distancing and lockdown measures. We followed a systematic review approach, in line with PRISMA guidelines. METHODS: In October 2020, we searched the databases Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Web of Science, using a pre-defined search strategy. RESULTS: The literature search yielded an initial list of 2172 records. After screening of titles and abstracts, followed by full-text screening, 51 articles were retained and included in the analysis. All of them referred to the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The direct health impact that was covered in the greatest number (25) of SR related to mental health, followed by 13 SR on healthcare delivery and 12 on infection control. The predominant areas of indirect health impacts covered by the included studies relate to the economic and social impacts. Only three articles mentioned the negative impact on education. CONCLUSIONS: The focus of SR so far has been uneven, with mental health receiving the most attention. The impact of measures to contain the spread of the virus can be direct and indirect, having both intended and unintended consequences.