Telemedicine in Neuromuscular Diseases During Covid-19 Pandemic: ERN-NMD European Survey.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine (TM) contributes to bridge the gap between healthcare facilities and patients' homes with neuromuscular disease (NMD) because of mobility issues. However, its deployment is limited due to difficulties evaluating subtle neurological signs such as mild weakness or sensory deficits. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare delivery worldwide, necessitating rapid measures implementation by health care providers (HCPs) to protect patients from acquiring SARS-CoV-2 while maintaining the best care and treatment. OBJECTIVES: Given the challenges faced by remote healthcare assistance of NMD patients, we aim to evaluate the use of TM in NMD during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Based on the Model for Assessment-of-Telemedicine-Applications (MAST), we conducted a survey amongst clinicians of the ERN EURO NMD (European-Reference-Network-for-Rare-Neuromuscular-Diseases). RESULTS: Based on 42 responses over 76 expected ones, our results show that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased the number of HCPs using TM (from 60% to 100%). The TM types most used during the COVID-19 period are teleconsultation and consultation by phone, particularly in the context of symptoms worsening in NMD patients with COVID-19 infection. Most European HCPs were satisfied when using TM but as a complementary option to physical consultations. Many responses addressed the issue of technical aspects needing improvement, particularly for elderly patients who need caregivers' assistance for accessing the TM platform. CONCLUSIONS: TM has been essential during COVID-19, but its use still presents some limitations for NMD patients with cognitive deficits or for first-time diagnosis. Thus, TM should be used as complement to, rather than substitute, for face-to-face consultations.

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.

Tackling the COVID-19 pandemic: Initial responses in 2020 in selected social health insurance countries in Europe☆.

Countries with social health insurance (SHI) systems display some common defining characteristics - pluralism of actors and strong medical associations - that, in dealing with crisis times, may allow for common learnings. This paper analyses health system responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in eight countries representative of SHI systems in Europe (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Switzerland). Data collection and analysis builds on the methodology and content in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) up to November 2020. We find that SHI funds were, in general, neither foreseen as major stakeholders in crisis management, nor were they represented in crisis management teams. Further, responsibilities in some countries shifted from SHI funds to federal governments. The overall organisation and governance of SHI systems shaped how countries responded to the challenges of the pandemic. For instance, coordinated ambulatory care often helped avoid overburdening hospitals. Decentralisation among local authorities may however represent challenges with the coordination of policies, i.e. coordination costs. At the same time, bottom-up self-organisation of ambulatory care providers is supported by decentralised structures. Providers also increasingly used teleconsultations, which may remain part of standard practice. It is recommended to involve SHI funds actively in crisis management and in preparing for future crisis to increase health system resilience.