Monitoring progress towards universal health coverage in Europe: a descriptive analysis of financial protection in 40 countries.

Background: Ensuring that access to health care is affordable for everyone-financial protection-is central to universal health coverage (UHC). Financial protection is commonly measured using indicators of financial barriers to access (unmet need for health care) and financial hardship caused by out-of-pocket payments for health care (impoverishing and catastrophic health spending). We aim to assess financial hardship and unmet need in Europe and identify the coverage policy choices that undermine financial protection. Methods: We carry out a cross-sectional study of financial hardship in 40 countries in Europe in 2019 (the latest available year of data before COVID-19) using microdata from national household budget surveys. We define impoverishing health spending as out-of-pocket payments that push households below or further below a relative poverty line and catastrophic health spending as out-of-pocket payments that exceed 40% of a household's capacity to pay for health care. We link these results to survey data on unmet need for health care, dental care, and prescribed medicines and information on two aspects of coverage policy at country level: the main basis for entitlement to publicly financed health care and user charges for covered services. Findings: Out-of-pocket payments for health care lead to financial hardship and unmet need in every country in the study, particularly for people with low incomes. Impoverishing health spending ranges from under 1% of households (in six countries) to 12%, with a median of 3%. Catastrophic health spending ranges from under 1% of households (in two countries) to 20%, with a median of 6%. Catastrophic health spending is consistently concentrated in the poorest fifth of the population and is largely driven by out-of-pocket payments for outpatient medicines, medical products, and dental care-all forms of treatment that should be an essential part of primary care. The median incidence of catastrophic health spending is three times lower in countries that cover over 99% of the population than in countries that cover less than 99%. In 16 out of the 17 countries that cover less than 99% of the population, the basis for entitlement is payment of contributions to a social health insurance (SHI) scheme. Countries that give greater protection from user charges to people with low incomes have lower levels of catastrophic health spending. Interpretation: It is challenging to identify with certainty the coverage policy choices that undermine financial protection due to the complexity of the policies involved and the difficulty of disentangling the effects of different choices. The conclusions we draw are therefore tentative, though plausible. Countries are more likely to move towards UHC if they reduce out-of-pocket payments in a progressive way, decreasing them for people with low incomes first. Coverage policy choices that seem likely to achieve this include de-linking entitlement from payment of SHI contributions; expanding the coverage of outpatient medicines, medical products, and dental care; limiting user charges; and strengthening protection against user charges, particularly for people with low incomes. Funding: The European Union (DG SANTE and DG NEAR) and the Government of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, Spain.

Strengthening Health Systems: A Practical Handbook for Resilience Testing

This handbook helps health system actors (leaders, managers, providers and payers) assess how vulnerable their health system is to a shock, pinpoint the kinds of actions needed to make it resilient and begin to develop responses to protect it.

Finland: Health system summary, 2023

This Health system summary is based on the Finland: Health System Review published in 2019 in the Health Systems in Transition (HiT) series, and is significantly updated by the authors, including relevant reform updates highlighted by the Health Systems and Policies Monitor (HSPM) (www.hspm.org).For this edition, key data have been updated to those available in December 2022, unless otherwise stated. Health system summaries use a concise format to communicate central features of country health systems and analyse available evidence on the organization, financing and delivery of healthcare. They also provide insights into key reforms and the varied challenges testing the performance of the health system.

The Devil Is in the Data: Can Regional Variation in Amenable Mortality Help to Understand Changes in Health System Performance in Poland?

The contribution of health systems to health is commonly assessed using levels of amenable mortality. Few such studies exist for Poland, with analyses of within-the-country patterns being particularly scarce. The aim of this paper is to analyse differences in amenable mortality levels and trends across Poland's regions using the most recent data and to gain a more nuanced understanding of these differences and possible reasons behind them. This can inform future health policy decisions, particularly when it comes to efforts to improve health system performance. We used national and regional mortality data to construct amenable mortality rates between 2002 and 2019. We found that the initially observed decline in amenable mortality stagnated between 2014 and 2019, something not seen elsewhere in Europe. The main driver behind this trend is the change in ischemic heart disease (IHD) mortality. However, we also found that there is a systematic underreporting of IHD as a cause of death in Poland in favour of heart failure, which makes analysis of health system performance using amenable mortality as an indicator less reliable. We also found substantial geographical differences in amenable mortality levels and trends across Poland, which ranged from -3.3% to +8.1% across the regions in 2014-2019. These are much bigger than variations in total mortality trends, ranging from -1.5% to -0.2% in the same period, which suggests that quality of care across regions varies substantially, although some of this effect is also a coding artefact. This means that interpretation of health system performance indicators is not straightforward and may prevent implementation of policies that are needed to improve population health.

What have European countries done to prevent the spread of COVID-19? Lessons from the COVID-19 Health system response monitor.

Although some European countries imposed measures that successfully slowed the transmission of Covid-19 during the first year of the pandemic, others struggled, either because they acted slowly or implemented measures ineffectively. In this paper we consider the European experience with public health measures designed to prevent transmission of COVID-19. Based on literature and country responses described in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor from March 2020 to December 2020, we consider some critical aspects of public health policy responses. These include the importance of public health capacity that can scale up surveillance and outbreak control, including effective testing and contract tracing, of clear messaging based on an understanding of human behaviour, policies that address the undesirable consequences of necessary measures, such as support for those isolating or unable to earn, and the ability to implement at pace and scale a major vaccine rollout. We conclude that for countries to be successful at preventing COVID-19 transmission, there is a need for a clear strategy with explicit goals and a whole systems approach to implementation.

Lessons learned from the Baltic countries' response to the first wave of COVID-19.

The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania shared a similar response to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the information available on the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor platform, this article analyzed measures taken to prevent transmission, ensure capacity, provide essential services, finance the health system, and coordinate their governance approaches. All three countries used a highly centralized approach and implemented restrictive measures relatively early, with a state of emergency declared with fewer than 30 reported cases in each country. Due to initially low COVID-19 incidence, the countries built up their capacities for testing, contact tracing, and infrastructure, without a major stress test to the health system throughout the spring and summer of 2020, yet issues with accessing routine health care services had already started manifesting themselves. The countries in the Baltic region entered the pandemic with a precarious starting point, particularly due to smaller operational budgets and health workforce shortages, which may have contributed to their escalated response aiming to prevent transmission during the first wave. Subsequent waves, however, were much more damaging. This article focuses on early responses to the pandemic in the Baltic states highlighting measures taken to prevent virus transmission in the face of major uncertainties.

Nordic responses to Covid-19: Governance and policy measures in the early phases of the pandemic.

This paper explores and compares health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the context of existing governance features. Content compiled in the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor combined with other publicly available country information serve as the foundation for this analysis. The analysis mainly covers early response until August 2020, but includes some key policy and epidemiological developments up until December 2020. Our findings suggest that despite the many similarities in adopted policy measures, the five countries display differences in implementation as well as outcomes. Declaration of state of emergency has differed in the Nordic region, whereas the emphasis on specialist advisory agencies in the decision-making process is a common feature. There may be differences in how respective populations complied with the recommended measures, and we suggest that other structural and circumstantial factors may have an important role in variations in outcomes across the Nordic countries. The high incidence rates among migrant populations and temporary migrant workers, as well as differences in working conditions are important factors to explore further. An important question for future research is how the COVID-19 epidemic will influence legislation and key principles of governance in the Nordic countries.

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.

Perspective: Lessons from COVID-19 of countries in the European region in light of findings from the health system response monitor.

Introduction: Decision-makers initially had limited data to inform their policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The research community developed several online databases to track cases, deaths, and hospitalizations; however, a major deficiency was the lack of detailed information on how health systems were responding to the pandemic and how they would need to be transformed going forward. Approach: In an effort to fill this information gap, in March 2020, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, the WHO European Regional Office and the European Commission created the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) to collect and organise up-to-date information on how health systems, mainly in the WHO European Region, were responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: The HSRM analysis and broader Observatory work on COVID-19 shone light on a range of health system challenges and weaknesses and catalogued policy options countries put in place during the pandemic to address these. Countries prioritised policies on investing in public health, supporting the workforce, maintaining financial stability, and strengthening governance in their response to COVID-19. Outlook: COVID-19 is likely to continue to impact health systems for the foreseeable future; the ability to cope with this pressure, and other shocks, depends on having good information on what other countries have done so that health systems develop adequate policy options. In support of this, the country information on the COVID-19 HSRM will remain available as a repository to inform decision makers on options for actions and possible measures against COVID-19 and other public health emergencies. Building on its previous work on health systems resilience, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies will sustain its focus on analysing key issues related to the recovery from the pandemic and making health systems more resilient. This includes policy knowledge transfer between countries and systematic resilience testing, aiming at contributing to an improved understanding of health system response, recovery, and preparedness. Contribution to the literature in non-technical language: The COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) was the first database in the WHO European Region to collect and organise up-to-date information on how health systems were responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The HSRM provides a repository of policies which can be used to inform decision makers in health and other policy domains on options for action and possible measures against COVID-19 and other public health emergencies. This initiative proved particularly valuable, especially during the early phases of the pandemic, when there was limited information for countries to draw on as they formulated their own policy response to the pandemic. Our perspectives paper highlights some key challenges within health systems that the HSRM was able to identify during the pandemic and considers policy options countries put in place in response. Our research contributes to literature on emergency responses and recovery, health systems performance assessment, particularly health system resilience, and showcases the Observatory experience on how to design such a data collection tool, as well as how to leverage its findings to support cross-country learning.

Health system performance assessment: a primer for policy-makers

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.

Health system resilience during the pandemic: it’s mostly about governance

Governance is the most important enabler of health system functioning. It provides a foundation and lever for resource generation, financing, and service delivery and ensures they operate well and in coordination with the rest of the system. It also extends beyond the health system through interactions between levels and actors. While there is no unanimously accepted framework for assessing governance, country examples can be used to illustrate how governance has contributed to health systems resilience during the crisis. Good governance prior to the pandemic, underpinned by strong state capacity, political leadership and community engagement, is keyto responding resiliently during a novel infectious disease outbreak, such as COVID-19.

Norway: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Norwegian health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. Norway is among the wealthiest nations in the world, with low levels of income inequality. Norwegians enjoy long and healthy lives, with substantial improvement made due to effective and high-quality medical care and the impact of broader public health policies. However, this comes at a high cost, as the Norwegian health system is among the most expensive in Europe, with most financing coming from public funds. Yet there are several areas requiring substantial co-payments, such as adult dental care, outpatient pharmaceuticals, and institutional care for older or disabled people. Recent and ongoing reforms have focused on aligning provision of care to changing population health needs, including adapting medical education, strengthening primary care and improving coordination between primary and specialist care sectors. There has been an increasing use of e-health solutions, and information and communication technologies. Improvements in measuring performance and a more effective use of indicators is expected to play a larger role in informing policy and planning of health services.

HIV prevention and treatment in Southern Europe in the aftermath of bailout programmes.

BACKGROUND: The global financial crisis impacted public health in Europe, and had a particularly critical detriment to health systems in Southern Europe. We aim to describe HIV response and progress towards the current global HIV targets in specific Southern European countries, which received financial adjustment programmes. METHODS: We examined and compared a set of HIV indicators in Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and Spain. The indicators included: (i) HIV epidemiology; (ii) adoption of WHO's 'Treat All' recommendation; (iii) progress towards the UNAIDS global targets of 90-90-90; (iv) adoption/implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); and (v) adoption/implementation of WHO's HIV self-testing (HIVST) recommendation. RESULTS: HIV incidence varied across countries since 2010, with sustained declines in Portugal and Spain, and marked increases in Greece and Cyprus. By 2016, all four countries have adopted WHO's 'Treat All' recommendation, leading to a marked increase in people receiving ART. Improvements were seen in all 90-90-90 targets, with Portugal achieving those in 2017, but Greece lagging somewhat behind, as of 2016. Portugal and Spain have also started implementing PrEP, and Greece has completed a pilot with no additional access to PrEP for pilot participants and no national programme in place. Cyprus has been the slowest in terms of adopting PrEP and HIVST. CONCLUSIONS: Countries need to focus on prioritizing effective and comprehensive prevention measures, including HIVST and PrEP, and scale-up access to quality treatment and care for those diagnosed, in order to accelerate the reduction of new HIVs infections and successfully meet the global targets for HIV treatment.

Norway's Healthcare Communities are set up to build bridges between hospitals and primary care

In 2012, the Coordination Reform was introduced inNorway to improve coordination between municipalities that organise primary care and the central government that organises specialised care. In 2020, a local governance reform is being implemented, and some municipalities and regions are being merged into larger entities. “Healthcare Communities”, a new partnership between hospitals and their surrounding municipalities, are being established to improve planning and development of services, as well as contribute to national planning. However, improving coordination between primary and specialist services may prove challenging, notably due to the way in which they are governed.

Norway: health system review

This analysis of the Norwegian health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. Norway is among the wealthiestnations in the world, with low levels of income inequality. Norwegians enjoy long and healthy lives, with substantial improvement made due to effective and high-quality medical care and the impact of broader public health policies. However, this comes at a high cost, as the Norwegian health system is among the most expensive in Europe, with most financing coming from public funds. Yet there are several areas requiring substantial co-payments, such as adult dental care, outpatient pharmaceuticals, and institutional care for older or disabled people. Recent and ongoing reforms have focused on aligning provision of care to changing population health needs, including adapting medical education,strengthening primary care and improving coordination between primary and specialist care sectors. There has been an increasing use of e-health solutions, and information and communication technologies. Improvementsin measuring performance and a more effective use of indicators is expected to play a larger role in informing policy and planning of health services.

Finland: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Finnish health system reviews developments in its organization and governance, financing, provision of services, health reforms and health system performance. Finland is a welfare state witha high standard of social and living conditions and a low poverty rate. Its health system has a highly decentralized administration, multiple funding sources, and three provision channels for statutory services in first-contact care: the municipal system, the national health insurance system, and occupational health care. The core health system is organized by the municipalities (i.e. local authorities) which are responsible for financing primary and specialized care. Health financing arrangements are fragmented, with municipalities, the health insurance system, employers and households all contributing substantial shares. The health system performs relatively well, as health services are fairly effective, but accessibility may be an issue due to long waiting times and relatively high levels of cost sharing. For over a decade, there has been broad agreement on the need to reform the Finnish health system, but reaching a feasible policy consensus has been challenging.