Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 76
Filter
3.
Health Policy ; 138: 104918, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37797445

ABSTRACT

A variety of methodologies have been developed to help health systems increase the 'value' created from their available resources. The urgency of creating value is heightened by population ageing, growth in people with complex morbidities, technology advancements, and increased citizen expectations. This study develops a policy framework that seeks to reconcile the various approaches towards value-based policies in health systems. The distinctive contribution is that we focus on the value created by the health system as a whole, including health promotion, thus moving from value-based health care towards a value-based health system perspective. We define health system value to be the contribution of the health system to societal wellbeing. We adopt a framework of five dimensions of value, embracing health improvement, health care responsiveness, financial protection, efficiency and equity, which we map onto a society's aggregate wellbeing. Actors within the health system make different contributions to value, and we argue that their perspectives can be aligned with a unifying concept of health system value. We provide examples of policy levers and highlight key actors and how they can promote certain aspects of health system value. We discuss advantages of value-based approach based on the notion of wellbeing and some practical obstacles to its implementation.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , Value-Based Health Care , Humans , Policy , Health Promotion
7.
Lancet Public Health ; 7(8): e718-e720, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35907422

ABSTRACT

Worldwide responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that it is possible for politicians to come together across departmental boundaries. To this end, in many countries, heads of government and their health ministers work closely with all other ministries, departments, and sectors, including social affairs, internal affairs, foreign affairs, research and education, transport, agriculture, business, and state aid. In this Viewpoint, we ask if and how the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can support intersectoral collaboration to promote health, since governments have already committed to achieving them. We contend that SDGs can do so, ultimately advancing health while offering co-benefits across society.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Government , Health Promotion , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Sustainable Development
9.
Health Policy ; 126(1): 1-6, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34961678

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic is a catastrophe. It was also preventable. The potential impacts of a novel pathogen were foreseen and for decades scientists and commentators around the world warned of the threat. Most governments and global institutions failed to heed the warnings or to pay enough attention to risks emerging at the interface of human, animal, and environmental health. We were not ready for COVID-19, and people, economies, and governments around the world have suffered as a result. We must learn from these experiences now and implement transformational changes so that we can prevent future crises, and if and when emergencies do emerge, we can respond in more timely, robust and equitable ways, and minimize immediate and longer-term impacts. In 2020-21 the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development assessed the challenges posed by COVID-19 in the WHO European region and the lessons from the response. The Commissioners have addressed health in its entirety, analyzing the interactions between health and sustainable development and considering how other policy priorities can contribute to achieving both. The Commission's final report makes a series of policy recommendations that are evidence-informed and above all actionable. Adopting them would achieve seven key objectives and help build truly sustainable health systems and fairer societies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Government , Health Policy , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Eur J Surg Oncol ; 48(5): 967-977, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34479744

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models. RESULTS: Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy. CONCLUSION: A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Radiation Oncology , Surgical Oncology , Fee-for-Service Plans , Humans , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Neoplasms/surgery , Reimbursement Mechanisms
11.
Radiother Oncol ; 169: 114-123, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34461186

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models. RESULTS: Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy. CONCLUSION: A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Radiation Oncology , Surgical Oncology , Fee-for-Service Plans , Humans , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Neoplasms/surgery
17.
Health systems and policy analysis; 49
Monography in English | WHO IRIS | ID: who-364198

ABSTRACT

This policy brief is one of a new series to meet the needs of policy-makers and health system managers. The aim is to develop key messages to support evidence-informed policy-making and the editors will continue to strengthen the series by working with authors to improve the consideration given to policy options and implementation.


Subject(s)
Health Policy , Health Services Research , Delivery of Health Care , Knowledge , Learning
18.
Копенгаген; Всемирная организация здравоохранения. Европейское региональное бюро; 2021.
in Russian | WHO IRIS | ID: who-347086

ABSTRACT

Данный краткий обзор представляет общую информацию и является введением в серию обзоров «Экономика здорового и активного старения». В нем рассматриваются основные фактические данные о расходах на здравоохранение и долгосрочный уход, связанных со старением, с тем чтобы лучше понять ожидаемое увеличение затрат в связи с изменением возрастного состава населения. В то же время в данном кратком обзоре обсуждается, каким образом пожилые люди могут вносить и вносят значимый вклад как в экономическом, так и в социальном плане, особенно если они способны оставаться здоровыми и активными в пожилом возрасте, формируя так называемую «серебряную экономику». В заключение данного обзора рассматриваются отдельные меры политики, которые продемонстрировали своюдейственность в поддержании здоровья и активного долголетия пожилых людей, либо могут иным образом укреплять устойчивые системы ухода в более широком контексте старения населения.


Subject(s)
Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aging , Healthy Aging , Health Care Costs , Health Services for the Aged , Health Policy , Long-Term Care
19.
Health Policy Series: 56;
Monography in English | WHO IRIS | ID: who-348493

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has created huge challenges. The lessons it has generated on preparing for future pandemics are clear but they are by no means the only learning. All health systems are vulnerable and there are practical steps that all countries can take, not simply to increase the resources available, but to ensure the capacity to mobilize, adapt and use those resources in different shock scenarios. The Health systems resilience during COVID-19: Lessons for building back better study gathers the evidence of how countries have managed (or not managed) to re-engineer what they do, who does what and how, and draws out the implications for future resilience. The study understands resilience as the ability of the health system to prepare for, manage and learn from a sudden and extreme disturbance. It is about maintaining the performance of core heath system functions. While the focus here is on responding to shock, it is increasingly evident that the ability to transform and evolve will also be critical in meeting long-term structural challenges to health systems.


Subject(s)
Health Services , Delivery of Health Care , Emergencies , COVID-19 , Efficiency , Policy
20.
Article in English | WHO IRIS | ID: who-344925

ABSTRACT

Governance is about making and implementing collective decisions. It is therefore vitally important to health policy and implementation and is a pivotal, yet often underestimated, enabler for leading a health system in times of emergencies, preventing them from becoming a crisis.


Subject(s)
Emergencies , COVID-19 , Health Policy , Delivery of Health Care
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...