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.

Living through uncertainty: a qualitative study on leadership and resilience in primary healthcare during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Resilience is often referred to when assessing the ability of health systems to maintain their functions during unexpected events. Primary healthcare forms the basis for the health system and thus its resilient responses are vital for the outcomes of the whole system. Understanding how primary healthcare organisations are able to build resilience before, during, and after unexpected or sudden shocks, is key to public health preparedness. This study aims to identify how leaders responsible for local health systems interpreted changes in their operational environment during the first year of COVID-19, and to elucidate how these views reflect aspects of resilience in healthcare. METHODS: The data consist of 14 semi-structured individual interviews with leaders of local health systems in Finland representing primary healthcare. The participants were recruited from four regions. An abductive thematic analysis was used to identify entities from the viewpoints of the purpose, resources, and processes of resilience in the healthcare organisation. RESULTS: Results were summarised as six themes, which suggest that embracing uncertainty is viewed by the interviewees a basis for primary healthcare functioning. Leading towards adaptability was regarded a distinct leadership task enabling the organisation to modify its functions according to demands of the changing operational environment. Workforce, knowledge and sensemaking, as well as collaboration represented what the leaders viewed as the means for achieving adaptability. The ability to adapt functioned to comprehensively meet the population's service needs built on a holistic approach. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed how the leaders who participated in this study adapted their work during changes brought on by the pandemic, and what they viewed as critical for maintaining organisational resilience. The leaders considered embracing uncertainty as a principal feature of their work rather than viewing uncertainty as aberrant and something to avoid. These notions, along with what the leaders considered as critical means for building resilience and adaptability should be addressed and elaborated in future research. Research on resilience and leadership should be conducted more in the complex context of primary healthcare, where cumulative stresses are encountered and processed continuously.

"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.

Use of digital health tools in Europe: Before, during and after COVID-19

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.

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.

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.