ABSTRACT
The pressure of COVID-19 on health system functioning has made policies to strengthen health system resilience a major theme of research. Accordingly, crises like COVID-19 can be seen as windows of opportunity for health system reforms to enhance health system resilience. In Finland, COVID-19 arrived on the eve of a major health system reform. In 2023 running health and social services will be transferred from 309 municipalities to 22 counties. While the reform was framed before the pandemic, we explore how lessons from COVID-19 matter for the future reform. Our results come from interviews of 53 top managers and civil servants in the year one of COVID-19, representing municipalities, municipal healthcare authorities and state agencies. The results offer a lookout to how national and local healthcare leaders view pandemic responses in connection to the future reform. Finland fared well in the pandemic compared to many countries e.g. in terms of excess deaths. However, our results reveal a tension between major issues in managing COVID-19 and implementing the reform. While the data suggest that dealing with a prolonged crisis proved challenging due to lack of trust, communication, and transparency between national and subnational actors in the health system, the dominant lessons learned and needs for reform among the interviewees build upon obvious fixes, such as ensuring supply of PPEs and ICU beds for the next pandemic. While being important in preparedness, these can build a legacy not tackling the root causes of lacking resilience and can be inconsistent with reform goals. The pandemic provides an opportunity to analyse the reformed system from a new viewpoint and may reveal weaknesses not considered in reform planning. Reforms can impact health system resilience in positive and negative ways. While different shocks may open new avenues for system transformation, they can also create path dependencies weakening the systems’ ability to prepare for unknown threats.
ABSTRACT
Background Crisis management Managing crises often requires diverging from predetermined plans. In this paper, we investigate how public health authorities in Finland acted, what kind of roles they adopted and how the expected roles and actions appeared in relation to the legislative framework and preparedness plans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on inter-country comparisons, Finland has managed COVID-19 pandemic relatively well. The study provides qualitative insights on pandemic governance in a decentralized multi-stakeholder public health system. Methods Semi-structured interviews (n = 53) with key public health actors at central, regional and local levels were conducted during March 2021-February 2022. The data was analysed with thematic analysis. Results The predetermined roles and duties for pandemic management were not unequivocal in practice and appeared unrealistic considering the resources of the public health system. Responsibility was divided between several actors, but lack of interaction enhanced emerging tensions between them. Local and regional actors experienced national steering intervening in operational decisions. At central level distrust towards the capabilities of local and regional actors was expressed. The pandemic was framed and managed as a health crisis despite of its wider societal effects. This challenged local and regional decision-making, where wider societal impacts had to be considered. Conclusions Public health authorities in Finland interpreted their roles and responsibilities in pandemic governance in various ways: some actors adopted more active agency than others and the roles were not always in line with the existing regulative framework. Key messages • Interpretation of the roles outlined in preparedness plans are context dependent and may lead to conflicts between different actors. • In a system with multiple actors at multiple levels, building trust and improving interaction are important for coordinated action.
ABSTRACT
Digital health tools hold the potential to improve the efficiency, accessibility and quality of care. Before the pandemic, efforts had been made to support implementation across Europe over many years, but widespread adoption in practice had been difficult and slow. The greatest barriers to adoption of digital health tools were not primarily technical in nature, but instead lay in successfully facilitating the required individual, organizational and system changes. During the COVID-19 pandemic many digital health tools moved from being viewed as a potential opportunity to becoming an immediate necessity, and their use increased substantially. Digital health tools have been used during the pandemic to support four main areas: communication and information, including tackling misinformation;surveillance and monitoring;the continuing provision of health care such as through remote consultations;and the rollout and monitoring of vaccination programmes. Greater use of digital health tools during the pandemic has been facilitated by: policy changes to regulation and reimbursement;investment in technical infrastructure;and training for health professionals. As the pandemic comes under control, if health systems are to retain added value from greater use of digital health tools, active strategies are needed now to build on the current momentum around their use. Areas to consider while developing such strategies include: Ensuring clear system-level frameworks and reimbursement regimes for the use of digital health tools, while allowing scope for co-design of digital health solutions by patients and health professionals for specific uses. Combining local flexibility with monitoring and evaluation to learn lessons and ensure that digital health tools help to meet wider health system goals.
ABSTRACT
All countries in Europe will have to find solutions to protect hospitals from revenue shortfalls and to adequately reimburse for COVID-19-related costs of care. This article reports on changes to hospital payment systems in Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (England). Hospitals in these countries are paid for treating COVID-19 patients using the usual system, modified Diagnosis Related Groups or new mechanisms. In many countries, hospitals receive their usual budgets or new money to compensate for revenue shortfalls. Only a few countries are paying non-contracted providers.