Kyrgyzstan: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Kyrgyz health system reviews developments in its organization and governance, financing, provision of services, health reforms and health system performance. A mandatory health insurance is in place, with the Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (MHIF) under the Ministry of Health acting as single public payer for almost all hospitals and providers of primary care. The benefits package of publicly covered services is defined in the State-Guaranteed Benefits Programme (SGBP). However, many services require co-payments and in 2019 only 69% of the population was covered by mandatory health insurance. Health expenditure per capita is one of the lowest in the WHO European Region, due to the country's small GDP per capita. Private spending, almost entirely in the form of out-of-pocket expenditure and including informal payments, accounted for 46.3% of health expenditure in 2019. Financial protection is undermined by low levels of public spending for health, resulting in financial hardship for people using health services. While there is a well-developed network of health facilities, the geographical distribution of health workers is uneven and there is an overall shortage of family doctors. Access to health services remains a challenge, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. While improvements have been made in recent years, communicable and noncommunicable diseases still pose a major problem and life expectancy prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was one of the lowest in the WHO European Region.

Survival of rural telehealth services post-pandemic in Australia: A call to retain the gains in the 'new normal'.

AIM: COVID-19 rapidly transformed how Australians access health care services. This paper considers how the inability for urban patients to access in-person care expediated the introduction of virtual solutions in health service delivery thus creating a new access paradigm for rural and remote Australians. CONTEXT: 'Physical distancing' is a phrase synonymous with public health responses to COVID-19 in Australia, but distance is a decades-long problem for rural health access. Counterintuitively, the pandemic and associated restrictions on mobility have reduced in real terms the distance from, and therefore the time taken to access, critical public services. 'Lockdowns' have unlocked health access for rural and remote Australians in ways that had been rejected prior to 2020. The pandemic has disrupted traditional delivery models and allowed the piloting of novel solutions, at the same time as stress-testing current delivery systems. In the process, it has laid bare a myopia we term 'urban paternalism' in understanding and delivering rural health. APPROACH: This commentary outlines how the COVID-19 operating environment has challenged traditional urban-dominated policy thinking about virtual health care delivery and how greater availability of telehealth appointments goes some way to reducing the health access gap for rural and remote Australians. CONCLUSION: Australian Commonwealth Government policy changes to expand the Medical Benefit Scheme (MBS) to include telephone or online health consultations are a positive initiative towards supporting Australians through the ongoing public health crisis and have also created access parity for some rural and remote patients. Although initially announced as a temporary COVID-19 measure in March 2020, telehealth has now become a permanent feature of the Medicare landscape. This significant public health reform has paved the way for a more flexible and inclusive universal health care system but, more importantly, taken much needed steps towards improving access to primary health care for patients in rural and remote areas. Now the question is: Can the health care system integrate this virtual model of delivery into 'business as usual' to ensure the long-term sustainability of telehealth services to rural and remote Australia?

COVID-19: The Time for Collaboration Between Long-Term Services and Supports, Health Care Systems, and Public Health Is Now.

Policy Points To address systemic problems amplified by COVID-19, we need to restructure US long-term services and supports (LTSS) as they relate to both the health care systems and public health systems. We present both near-term and long-term policy solutions. Seven near-term policy recommendations include requiring the uniform public reporting of COVID-19 cases in all LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering protections for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for vulnerable populations. Long-term reform should focus on comprehensive workforce development, comprehensive LTSS financing reform, and the creation of an age-friendly public health system. CONTEXT: The heavy toll of COVID-19 brings the failings of the long-term services and supports (LTSS) system in the United States into sharp focus. Although these are not new problems, the pandemic has exacerbated and amplified their impact to a point that they are impossible to ignore. The primary blame for the high rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths has been assigned to formal LTSS care settings, specifically nursing homes. Yet other systemic problems have been unearthed during this pandemic: the failure to coordinate the US public health system at the federal level and the effects of long-term disinvestment and neglect of state- and local-level public health programs. Together these failures have contributed to an inability to coordinate with the LTSS system and to act early to protect residents and staff in the LTSS care settings that are hotspots for infection, spread, and serious negative health outcomes. METHODS: We analyze several impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the US LTSS system and policy arrangements. The economic toll on state budgets has been multifaceted, and the pandemic has had a direct impact on Medicaid, the primary funder of LTSS, which in turn has further exacerbated the states' fiscal problems. Both the inequalities across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as well as the increased burden on unpaid caregivers are clear. So too is the need to better integrate LTSS with the health, social care, and public health systems. FINDINGS: We propose seven near-term actions that US policymakers could take: implementing a uniform public reporting of COVID-19 cases in LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering support for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing the barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for our most vulnerable populations. Our analysis also demonstrates that our nation requires comprehensive reform to build the LTSS system we need through comprehensive workforce development, universal coverage through comprehensive financing reform, and the creation of an age-friendly public health system. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has exposed the many deficits of the US LTSS system and made clear the interdependence of LTSS with public health. Policymakers have an opportunity to address these failings through a substantive reform of the LTSS system and increased collaboration with public health agencies and leaders. The opportunity for reform is now.

Biden And New Congress Tackle COVID-19, ACA.

President Joe Biden will try to navigate a Congress narrowly controlled by Democrats while acting administratively as well.

Expanding health care coverage in Canada: a dramatic shift in the debate.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has shifted the health policy debate in Canada. While the pre-pandemic focus of policy experts and government reports was on the question of whether to add outpatient pharmaceuticals to universal health coverage, the clustering of pandemic deaths in long-term care facilities has spurred calls for federal standards in long-term care (LTC) and its possible inclusion in universal health coverage. This has led to the probability that the federal government will attempt to expand medicare as Canadians have known it for the first time in over a half century. However, these efforts are likely to fail if the federal government relies on the shared-cost federalism that marked the earlier introduction of medicare. Two alternative pathways are suggested, one for LTC and one for pharmaceuticals, that are more likely to succeed given the state of the Canadian federation in the early 21st century.

COVID-19: A Window of Opportunity for Positive Healthcare Reforms.

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is testing healthcare systems like never before and all efforts are now being put into controlling the COVID-19 crisis. We witness increasing morbidity, delivery systems that sometimes are on the brink of collapse, and some shameless rent seeking. However, besides all the challenges, there are also possibilities that are opening up. In this perspective, we focus on lessons from COVID-19 to increase the sustainability of health systems. If we catch the opportunities, the crisis might very well be a policy window for positive reforms. We describe the positive opportunities that the COVID-19 crisis has opened to reduce the sources of waste for our health systems: failures of care delivery, failures of care coordination, overtreatment or low-value care, administrative complexity, pricing failures and fraud and abuse. We argue that current events can canalize some very needy reforms to make our systems more sustainable. As always, political policy windows are temporarily open, and so swift action is needed, otherwise the opportunity will pass and the vested interests will come back to pursue their own agendas. Professionals can play a key role in this as well.

Belgium: Health System Review.

The Belgian health system covers almost the entire population for a large range of services. The main source of financing is social contributions, proportional to income. The provision of care is based on the principles of independent medical practice, free choice of physician and care facility, and predominantly fee-for-service payment. The Belgian population enjoys good health and long life expectancy. This is partly due to the population's good access to many high-quality health services. However, some challenges remain in terms of appropriateness of pharmaceutical care (overuse of antibiotics and psychotropic drugs), reduced accessibility for mental health and dental care due to higher user charges, socioeconomic inequalities in health status and the need for further strengthening of prevention policies. The system must also continue to evolve to cope with an ageing population, an increase of chronic diseases and the development of new technologies. This Belgian HiT profile (2020) presents the evolution of the health system since 2014, including detailed information on new policies. The most important reforms concern the transfer of additional health competences from the Federal State to the Federated entities and the plan to redesign the landscape of hospital care. Policy-makers have also pursued the goals of further improving access to high-quality services, while maintaining the financial sustainability and efficiency of the system, resulting in the implementation of several measures promoting multidisciplinary and integrated care, the concentration of medical expertise, patient care trajectories, patient empowerment, evidence-based medicine, outcome-based care and the so-called one health approach. Cooperation with neighbouring countries on pricing and reimbursement policies to improve access to (very high price) innovative medicines are also underway. Looking ahead, because additional challenges will be highlighted by the COVID-19 crisis, a focus on the resilience of the system is expected.

Lessons learned from the fight against COVID-19 in the Great Maghreb.Five lessons for better resilience.

OBJECTIVE: To compile the lessons learned in the Greater Maghreb, during the first six months of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, in the field of "capacity building" of community resilience. METHODS: An expert consultation was conducted during the first week of May 2020, using the "Delphi" technique. An email was sent requesting the formulation of a lesson, in the form of a "Public Health" good practice recommendation. The final text of the lessons was finalized by the group coordinator and validated by the signatories of the manuscript. RESULTS: A list of five lessons of resilience has been deduced and approved : 1. Elaboration of "white plans" for epidemic management; 2. Training in epidemic management; 3. Uniqueness of the health system command; 4. Mobilization of retirees and volunteers; 5. Revision of the map sanitary. CONCLUSION: Based on the evaluation of the performance of the Maghreb fight against COVID-19, characterized by low resilience, this list of lessons could constitute a roadmap for the reform of Maghreb health systems, towards more performance to manage possible waves of COVID-19 or new emerging diseases with epidemic tendency.

Infectious Disease Threats: A Rebound To Resilience.

The US has experienced a series of epidemics during the past five decades. None has tested the nation's resilience like the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which has laid bare critical weaknesses in US pandemic preparedness and domestic leadership and the nation's decline in global standing in public health. Pandemic response has been politicized, proven public health measures undermined, and public confidence in a science-based public health system reduced. This has been compounded by the large number of citizens without ready access to health care, who are overrepresented among infected, hospitalized, and fatal cases. Here, as part of the National Academy of Medicine's Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities for 2021 initiative, we review the US approach to pandemic preparedness and its impact on the response to COVID-19. We identify six steps that should be taken to strengthen US pandemic resilience, strengthen and modernize the US health care system, regain public confidence in government leadership in public health, and restore US engagement and leadership in global partnerships to address future pandemic threats domestically and around the world.

Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Urgent Need to Expand Primary Care and Family Medicine.

The COVID-19 pandemic, together with its resultant economic downturn, has unmasked serious problems of access, costs, quality of care, inequities, and disparities of US health care. It has exposed a serious primary care shortage, the unreliability of employer-sponsored health insurance, systemic racism, and other dysfunctions of a system turned on its head without a primary care base. Fundamental reform is urgently needed to bring affordable health care that is accessible to all Americans. Over the last 40-plus years, our supposed system has been taken over by corporate stakeholders with the presumption that a competitive unfettered marketplace will achieve the needed goal of affordable, accessible care. That theory has been thoroughly disproven by experience as the ranks of more than 30 million uninsured and 87 million underinsured demonstrates. Three main reform alternatives before us are: (1) to build on the Affordable Care Act; (2) to implement some kind of a public option; and (3) to enact single-payer Medicare for All. It is only the third option that can make affordable, comprehensive health care accessible for our entire population. As the debate goes forward over these alternatives during this election season, the likelihood of major change through a new system of national health insurance is becoming increasingly realistic. Rebuilding primary care and public health is a high priority as we face a new normal in US health care that places the public interest above that of corporate stakeholders and Wall Street investors. Primary care, and especially family medicine, should become the foundation of a reformed health care system.

COVID-19 Has Revealed America's Broken Health Care System: What Can We Learn?

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed long-standing system problems of US health care ranging from access barriers, uncontrolled prices and costs, unacceptable quality, widespread disparities and inequities, and marginalization of public health. All of these have been well documented by international comparisons. Our largely privatized market-based system and medical-industrial complex have been ill equipped to respond effectively to the pandemic. The accompanying economic downturn exacerbates these problems that further reveal the failures of our largely for-profit private health insurance industry, dependent as it is on continued government subsidies while it profiteers on the backs of vulnerable Americans. This article brings historical perspective to these problems, and provides markers of the extent of our unpreparedness and ineffective response to the pandemic. Coherent national health and public health policies are urgently needed based on evidence-based science, not political pressures. Financing reform is necessary, such as through single-payer Medicare for All. Eight takeaway lessons are summarized that can help to inform now best to rebuild US health care and public health, an urgent task for the incoming Biden administration.

Cherry Blossoms, COVID-19, and the Opportunity for a Healthy Life.

To date, short-term funding and policy fixes for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have focused on saving the current health care system; policies have not maximized the population's health, prioritized the safety net, nor addressed the fundamental problems that have hindered our nation's response for our most vulnerable neighbors. We need to plan more lasting equity-specific reforms now. I explain 3 lessons that should inform reforms to the health care delivery and payment systems to reduce health disparities and maximize the public's health: (1) Proven roadmaps and processes for reducing health care disparities already exist, as do themes of successful interventions. Implement them; (2) Payment reform needs to create a business case for health care organizations to address social determinants of health and implement care interventions to reduce health disparities; (3) We as a nation need to have hard conversations about whether we truly value the opportunity for everyone to have a healthy life.