Telemedicine Has a Social Impact: An Italian National Study for the Evaluation of the Cost-Opportunity for Patients and Caregivers and the Measurement of Carbon Emission Savings.

Background: Owing to COVID-19, all stakeholders have recognized the advantages of telehealth and they were available for its permanent implementation, both from the normative and economic point of view. It is, therefore, necessary to understand what were the real benefits created in society through telehealth. Objective: Develop a method to identify a social impact of telemedicine in Italy, considering the reduction on the patient moves with a consequent travel cost, time (opportunity costs), and carbon emission savings. Methods: Since March 2020, we have conducted a quality improvement study in 17 centers, collecting sociodemographic variables. To assess the social impact, we transform the data into outcome measures. The protocol used "Telemedicina Subito" allows the rapid implementation of telemedicine, using operating manual, structured according Health Technology Assessment approach. Results: We collected data related to 2,091 televisits, analyzing three different perspectives. First, one patient with a televisit had a saving equal to the median of EUR 97.16 (interquartile range [IQR]: 64.29-159.69), USD 113.88; considering that the median cost for the visit in presence was EUR 105.91 (p-value <0.05) and after the use of telehealth had a median of EUR 0 (mean: EUR 14.70; p-value <0.05). Second, informal caregivers have a median savings of EUR 65.06 (IQR: 55.52-89.21), USD 76.26. Finally, for one single telemedicine visits we can contribute with a median carbon emission savings of ∼13 kg (IQR: 6-24). Conclusions: The evaluation of the social impact on telemedicine facilitated the creation of an important framework for decision-makers.

COVID-19: yesterday, today and tomorrow. The quality of COVID-19 management and the evaluation of the "Health" chapter of the Recovery Plan.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic represented an unprecedented challenge for the healthcare world and the introduction of a new stronger and believable project plays a fundamental role for the quality of work and the provision of qualitative care. Aim: The survey provided by Italian Association for the Quality of Health and Social Care (ASIQUAS) aims to examines the impact of "Health" chapter included in the Recovery Plan, through the assessment of management quality of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Starting from a literature review, in September 2021, a web-based survey has been conducted and administered by e-mail. It has been taken into account measures widely used by different healthcare structures in order to analyze the projects implemented in the face of pandemic and to evaluate the new real possibility to invest funds in new healthcare structures and projects. Results: The survey consists of 19 multiple choices and respondents were from different types of structures, including regional departments and regional health agencies (1.4%), universities, research centers and scientific hospitalization and treatment institutes (IRCCS) (11%), hospitals and university polyclinics (34.2%), Local Health Authorities (39.7%), socio-health organizations and Others (13.7%). The pandemic has highlighted many vulnerabilities at both hospitals and territorial level. The major weaknesses revealed by the survey are mainly due to the lack of support from new staff units and poor availability of specific training tools for COVID-19 procedures. The Recovery Plan is still unclear with a lot of concern about the implementation and many limits of diffusion. Conclusions: It becomes essential to guarantee a new effective and interoperative model of integration. Today we can start more aware for the implementation of a system closer to everyone's needs, making shortcomings the new strength and starting point.

Early health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Mediterranean countries: A tale of successes and challenges.

This paper conducts a comparative review of the (curative) health systems' response taken by Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Italy, Malta, Portugal, and Spain during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, these Mediterranean countries shared similarities in terms of health system resources, which were low compared to the EU/OECD average. We distill key policy insights regarding the governance tools adopted to manage the pandemic, the means to secure sufficient physical infrastructure and workforce capacity and some financing and coverage aspects. We performed a qualitative analysis of the evidence reported to the 'Health System Response Monitor' platform of the European Observatory by country experts. We found that governance in the early stages of the pandemic was undertaken centrally in all the Mediterranean countries, even in Italy and Spain where regional authorities usually have autonomy over health matters. Stretched public resources prompted countries to deploy "flexible" intensive care unit capacity and health workforce resources as agile solutions. The private sector was also utilized to expand resources and health workforce capacity, through special public-private partnerships. Countries ensured universal coverage for COVID-19-related services, even for groups not usually entitled to free publicly financed health care, such as undocumented migrants. We conclude that flexibility, speed and adaptive management in health policy responses were key to responding to immediate needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Financial barriers to accessing care as well as potentially higher mortality rates were avoided in most of the countries during the first wave. Yet it is still early to assess to what extent countries were able to maintain essential services without undermining equitable access to high quality 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.

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.

Contactless: a new personalised telehealth model in chronic pediatric diseases and disability during the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Suspending ordinary care activities during the COVID-19 pandemic made it necessary to find alternative routes to comply with care recommendations not only for acute health needs but also for patients requiring follow-up and multidisciplinary visits. We present the 'Contactless' model, a comprehensive operational tool including a plurality of services delivered remotely, structured according to a complexity gradient, aimed to cover diagnostic procedures and monitor disease progression in chronic pediatric patients. METHODS: A multidisciplinary and multiprofessional project team was recruited, in collaboration with patients' associations, to map a panel of available Evidence-Based solutions and address individual needs in full respect of the concept of personalized medicine. The solutions include a number of services from videoconsultations to more structure videotraining sessions. RESULTS: A modular framework made up of four three Macro-levels of complexity - Contactless Basic, Intermediate and Advanced - was displayed as an incremental set of services and operational planning establishing each phase, from factors influencing eligibility to the delivery of the most accurate and complex levels of care. CONCLUSION: The multimodal, multidisciplinary 'Contactless' model allowed the inclusion of all Units of our Pediatric Department and families with children with disability or complex chronic conditions. The strengths of this project rely on its replicability outside of pediatrics and in the limited resources needed to practically impact patients, caregivers and professionals involved in the process of care. Its implementation in the future may contribute to reduce the duration of hospital admissions, money and parental absence from work.