Health financing policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: a review of the first stages in the WHO South-East Asia Region.

COVID-19 imposed unprecedented financing requirements on countries to rapidly implement effective prevention and control measures while dealing with severe economic contraction. The challenges were particularly acute for the 11 countries in the WHO South-East Asia Region (SEAR), home to the lowest average level of public expenditure on health of all WHO regions. We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed, grey literature and publicly available sources to analyse the immediate health financing policies adopted by countries in the WHO SEAR in response to COVID-19 in the first 12 months of the pandemic, i.e. from 1 March 2020 to 1 March 2021. Our review focused on the readiness of health systems to address the financial challenges of COVID-19 in terms of revenue generation, financial protection and strategic purchasing including public financial management issues. Twenty peer-reviewed articles were included, and web searches identified media articles (n = 21), policy reports (n = 18) and blog entries (n = 5) from reputable sources. We found that countries in the SEAR demonstrated great flexibility in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, including exploring various options for revenue raising, removing financial barriers to care and rapidly adapting purchasing arrangements. At the same time, the pandemic exposed pre-existing health financing policy weaknesses such as underinvestment, inadequate regulatory capacity of the private health sector and passive purchasing, which should give countries an impetus for reform towards more resilient health systems. Further monitoring and evaluation are needed to assess the long-term implications of policy responses on issues such as government capacity for debt servicing and fiscal space for health and how they protect progress towards the objectives of universal health coverage.

The impact of economic recessions on health workers: a systematic review and best-fit framework synthesis of the evidence from the last 50 years.

Economic crises carry a substantial impact on population health and health systems, but little is known on how these transmit to health workers (HWs). Addressing such a gap is timely as HWs are pivotal resources, particularly during pandemics or the ensuing recessions. Drawing from the empirical literature, we aimed to provide a framework for understanding the impact of recessions on HWs and their reactions. We use a systematic review and best-fit framework synthesis approach to identify the relevant qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods evidence, and refine an a priori, theory-based conceptual framework. Eight relevant databases were searched, and four reviewers employed to independently review full texts, extract data and appraise the quality of the evidence retrieved. A total of 57 peer-reviewed publications were included, referring to six economic recessions. The 2010-15 Great Recession in Europe was the subject of most (52%) of the papers. Our consolidated framework suggests that recessions transmit to HWs through three channels: (1) an increase in the demand for services; (2) the impacts of austerity measures; and (3) changes in the health labour market. Some of the evidence appeared specific to the context of crises; demand for health services and employment increased during economic recessions in North America and Oceania, but stagnated or declined in Europe in connection with the austerity measures adopted. Burn-out, lay-offs, migration and multiple jobholding were the reactions observed in Europe, but job opportunities never dwindled for physicians during recessions in North America, with nurses re-entering labour markets during such crises. Loss of motivation, absenteeism and abuse of health systems were documented during recessions in low-income countries. Although the impacts of recessions may vary across economic events, health systems, labour markets and policy responses, our review and framework provide an evidence base for policies to mitigate the effects on HWs.

Can Asia provide models for tax-based European health systems? A comparative study of Singapore and Sweden.

Singapore's health system generates similar levels of health outcomes as does Sweden's but for only 4.4% rather than 11.0% of gross domestic product, with Singapore's resulting health sector savings being re-directed to help fund both long-term care and retirement pensions for its elderly citizens. This paper contrasts the framework of financial risk-sharing and the configuration and management of health service providers in these two high-income, small-population countries. Two main institutional distinctions emerge from this country case comparison: (1) Key differences exist in the practical configuration of solidarity for payment of health care services, reflecting differing cultural roots and social expectations, which in turn carry substantial implications for financing long-term care and pensions. (2) Differing arrangements exist in the organization of health service institutions, in particular balancing public as against private sector responsibilities for owning, operating and managing these two countries' respective hospitals. These different structural characteristics generate fundamental differences in health sector financial and delivery outcomes in one developed country in Far East Asia as compared with a well-respected tax-funded health system in Western Europe. In the post-COVID era, as Western European policymakers find themselves forced to adjust their publicly funded health systems to (further) reductions in economic growth rates and overall tax receipts, and as the cost of the information revolution continues to rise while efforts to fund better coordinated social and home care services for growing numbers of chronically ill elderly remain inadequate, this two-country case comparison highlights a series of health system design questions that could potentially provide alternative health sector financing and service delivery strategies.