Divergent COVID-19 vaccine policies: Policy mapping of ten European countries.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the fragmented nature of governmental policy decisions in Europe. However, the extent to which COVID-19 vaccination policies differed between European countries remains unclear. Here, we mapped the COVID-19 vaccination policies that were in effect in January 2022 as well as booster regulations in April 2022 in Austria, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain. METHODS: National public health and health policy experts from these ten European nations developed and completed an electronic questionnaire. The questionnaire included a series of questions that addressed six critical components of vaccine implementation, including (1) authorization, (2) prioritization, (3) procurement and distribution, (4) data collection, (5) administration, and (6) mandate requirements. RESULTS: Our findings revealed significant variations in COVID-19 vaccination policies across Europe. We observed critical differences in COVID-19 vaccine formulations authorized for use, as well as the specific groups that were provided with priority access. We also identified discrepancies in how vaccination-related data were recorded in each country and what vaccination requirements were implemented. CONCLUSION: Each of the ten European nations surveyed in this study reported different COVID-19 vaccination policies. These differences complicated efforts to provide a coordinated pandemic response. These findings might alert policymakers in Europe of the need to coordinate their efforts to avoid fostering divergent and socially disruptive policies.

Coping with COVID-19: the role of hospital care structures and capacity expansion in five countries.

This contribution examines the responses of five health systems in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Denmark, Germany, Israel, Spain and Sweden. The aim is to understand to what extent this crisis response of these countries was resilient. The study focuses on hospital care structures, considering both existing capacity before the pandemic and the management and expansion of capacity during the crisis. Evaluation criteria include flexibility in the use of existing resources and response planning, as well as the ability to create surge capacity. Data were collected from country experts using a structured questionnaire. Main findings are that not only the total number but also the availability of hospital beds is critical to resilience, as is the ability to mobilise (highly) qualified personnel. Indispensable for rapid capacity adjustment is the availability of data. Countries with more centralised hospital care structures, more sophisticated concepts for providing specialised services and stronger integration of the inpatient and outpatient sectors have clear structural advantages. A solid digital infrastructure is also conducive. Finally, a centralised governance structure is crucial for flexibility and adaptability. In decentralised systems, robust mechanisms to coordinate across levels are important to strengthen health care system resilience in pandemic situations and beyond.

The role of self-efficacy, well-being capability and diabetes care assessment for emotional and diabetes management challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from a follow-up study.

This study aimed to investigate the potential protective role of baseline resources and capabilities for experiencing challenges to emotional well-being and perceived access to and quality of diabetes care during the COVID-19 pandemic in a Danish type 2 diabetes population (N = 1608). We investigated how differences in self-efficacy, well-being capability, socioeconomic status, health status, and perceptions of diabetes care measured before the COVID-19 pandemic were related to experiences of well-being and diabetes management challenges during the pandemic. The study is based on a survey conducted shortly before the pandemic (autumn 2019) and a follow-up survey during the pandemic (autumn 2020), which included questions about impacts of the pandemic. We used this longitudinal data to quantitatively investigate in regression analyses how self-reported baseline indicators of chronic care access and quality (PACIC), self-efficacy (GSE), health (EQ VAS), and well-being capability (ICECAP-A), and registry-based socioeconomic indicators were associated with the probability of reporting negative impacts on emotional wellbeing and diabetes management. Results showed that respondents with higher baseline general self-efficacy and higher well-being capability scores, who more often considered care well-organised and were in better health before the pandemic, were less likely to report pandemic-related negative impacts on emotional well-being. Considering diabetes care well organised before the pandemic was associated with a lower probability of adverse impacts on diabetes care. The results thus broadly confirmed that several indicators of higher levels of baseline resources and capabilities were associated with a lower probability of reporting negative impacts of the pandemic. However, some variation in predictors was observed for general well-being outcomes, compared to diabetes-care specific challenges, and findings on socioeconomic status as indicated by education were mixed.

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.

Social Distancing Policies in the Coronavirus Battle: A Comparison of Denmark and Sweden.

Social distancing measures have been a key component in government strategies to mitigate COVID-19 globally. Based on official documents, this study aimed to identify, compare and analyse public social distancing policy measures adopted in Denmark and Sweden regarding the coronavirus from 1 March 2020 until 1 October 2020. A key difference was the greater emphasis on laws and executive orders (sticks) in Denmark, which allowed the country to adopt many stricter policy measures than Sweden, which relied mostly on general guidelines and recommendations (sermons). The main policy adopters in Denmark were the government and the Danish Parliament, whereas the Public Health Agency issued most policies in Sweden, reflecting a difference in political governance and administrative structure in the two countries. During the study period, Sweden had noticeably higher rates of COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations per 100,000 population than Denmark, yet it is difficult to determine the impact or relative effectiveness of sermons and sticks, particularly with regard to broader and longer-term health, economic and societal effects.

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.