A comparison of social prescribing approaches across twelve high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing connects patients with community resources to improve their health and well-being. It is gaining momentum globally due to its potential for addressing non-medical causes of illness while building on existing resources and enhancing overall health at a relatively low cost. The COVID-19 pandemic further underscored the need for policy interventions to address health-related social issues such as loneliness and isolation. AIM: This paper presents evidence of the conceptualisation and implementation of social prescribing schemes in twelve countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, England, Finland, Germany, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, the Netherlands, the United States and Wales. METHODS: Twelve countries were identified through the Health Systems and Policy Monitor (HSPM) network and the EuroHealthNet Partnership. Information was collected through a twelve open-ended question survey based on a conceptual model inspired by the WHO's Health System Framework. RESULTS: We found that social prescribing can take different forms, and the scale of implementation also varies significantly. Robust evidence on impact is scarce and highly context-specific, with some indications of cost-effectiveness and positive impact on well-being. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides insights into social prescribing in various contexts and may guide countries interested in holistically tackling health-related social factors and strengthening community-based care. Policies can support a more seamless integration of social prescribing into existing care, improve collaboration among sectors and training programs for health and social care professionals.

Addressing health inequity during the COVID-19 pandemic through primary health care and public health collaboration: a multiple case study analysis in eight high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic substantially magnified the inequity gaps among vulnerable populations. Both public health (PH) and primary health care (PHC) have been crucial in addressing the challenges posed by the pandemic, especially in the area of vulnerable populations. However, little is known about the intersection between PH and PHC as a strategy to mitigate the inequity gap. This study aims to assess the collaboration between PHC and PH with a focus on addressing the health needs of vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic across jurisdictions. METHODS: We analyzed and compared data from jurisdictional reports of COVID-19 pandemic responses in PHC and PH in Belgium, Canada (Ontario), Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain from 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: Four themes emerge from the analysis: (1) the majority of the countries implemented outreach strategies targeting vulnerable groups as a means to ensure continued access to PHC; (2) digital assessment in PHC was found to be present across all the countries; (3) PHC was insufficiently represented at the decision-making level; (4) there is a lack of clear communication channels between PH and PHC in all the countries. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified opportunities for collaboration between PHC and PH to reduce inequity gaps and to improve population health, focusing on vulnerable populations. The COVID-19 response in these eight countries has demonstrated the importance of an integrated PHC system. Consequently, the development of effective strategies for responding to and planning for pandemics should take into account the social determinants of health in order to mitigate the unequal impact of COVID-19. Careful, intentional coordination between PH and PHC should be established in normal times as a basis for effective response during future public health emergencies. The pandemic has provided significant insights on how to strengthen health systems and provide universal access to healthcare by fostering stronger connections between PH and PHC.

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.

Exploring variation of coverage and access to dental care for adults in 11 European countries: a vignette approach.

BACKGROUND: Oral health, coupled with rising awareness on the impact that limited dental care coverage has on oral health and general health and well-being, has received increased attention over the past few years. The purpose of the study was to compare the statutory coverage and access to dental care for adult services in 11 European countries using a vignette approach. METHODS: We used three patient vignettes to highlight the differences of the dimensions of coverage and access to dental care (coverage, cost-sharing and accessibility). The three vignettes describe typical care pathways for patients with the most common oral health conditions (caries, periodontal disease, edentulism). The vignettes were completed by health services researchers knowledgeable on dental care, dentists, or teams consisting of a health systems expert working together with dental specialists. RESULTS: Completed vignettes were received from 11 countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Republic of Ireland (Ireland), Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden. While emergency dental care, tooth extraction and restorative care for acute pain due to carious lesions are covered in most responding countries, root canal treatment, periodontal care and prosthetic restoration often require cost-sharing or are entirely excluded from the benefit basket. Regular dental visits are also limited to one visit per year in many countries. Beyond financial barriers due to out-of-pocket payments, patients may experience very different physical barriers to accessing dental care. The limited availability of contracted dentists (especially in rural areas) and the unequal distribution and lack of specialised dentists are major access barriers to public dental care. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results, statutory coverage of dental care varies across European countries, while access barriers are largely similar. Many dental services require substantial cost-sharing in most countries, leading to high out-of-pocket spending. Socioeconomic status is thus a main determinant for access to dental care, but other factors such as geography, age and comorbidities can also inhibit access and affect outcomes. Moreover, coverage in most oral health systems is targeted at treatment and less at preventative oral health 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.

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.

Achieving higher performing primary care through patient registration: A review of twelve high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Patient registration with a primary care providers supports continuity in the patient-provider relationship. This paper develops a framework for analysing the characteristics of patient registration across countries; applies this framework to a selection of countries; and identifies challenges and ongoing reform efforts. METHODS: 12 jurisdictions (Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Ontario [Canada], Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom) were selected for analysis. Information was collected by national researchers who reviewed relevant literature and policy documents to report on the establishment and evolution of patient registration, the requirements and benefits for patients, providers and payers, and its connection to primary care reforms. RESULTS: Patient registration emerged as part of major macro-level health reforms linked to the introduction of universal health coverage. Recent reforms introduced registration with the aim of improving quality through better coordination and efficiency through reductions in unnecessary referrals. Patient registration is mandatory only in three countries. Several countries achieve high levels of registration by using strong incentives for patients and physicians (capitation payments). CONCLUSION: Patient registration means different things in different countries and policy-makers and researchers need to take into consideration: the history and characteristics of the registration system; the use of incentives for patients and providers; and the potential for more explicit use of patient-provider agreements as a policy to achieve more timely, appropriate, continuous and integrated care.

Physical accessibility of primary care facilities for people with disabilities: a cross-sectional survey in 31 countries.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is the first point of care, also for people with disabilities. The accessibility of primary care facilities is therefore very important. In this study we analysed comparative data on physical accessibility of general practices (GP practices) in 31 (mainly) European countries. METHODS: We used data from the QUALICOPC study, conducted in 2011 among GPs in 34 (mainly European) countries and constructed a physical accessibility scale. We applied multilevel analysis to assess the differences between and within countries and to test hypotheses, related to characteristics of the practices and of the countries. RESULTS: We found large differences between countries and a strong clustering of physical accessibility within countries. Physical accessibility was negatively related to the age of the GPs, and was less in single-handed and in inner city practices. Of the country variables only the length of the period of social democratic government participation during the previous decades was positively related to physical accessibility. CONCLUSION: A large share of the variation in physical accessibility of GP practices was on the level of countries. This means that national policies can be used to increase physical accessibility of GP practices.

Mapping variability in allocation of Long-Term Care funds across payer agencies in OECD countries.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term care (LTC) is organized in a fragmented manner. Payer agencies (PA) receive LTC funds from the agency collecting funds, and commission services. Yet, distributional equity (DE) across PAs, a precondition to geographical equity of access to LTC, has received limited attention. We conceptualize that LTC systems promote DE when they are designed to set eligibility criteria nationally (vs. locally); and to distribute funds among PAs based on needs-formula (vs. past-budgets or government decisions). OBJECTIVES: This cross-country study highlights to what extent different LTC systems are designed to promote DE across PAs, and the parameters used in allocation formulae. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected through a questionnaire filled by experts from 17 OECD countries. RESULTS: 11 out of 25 LTC systems analyzed, fully meet DE as we defined. 5 systems which give high autonomy to PAs have designs with low levels of DE; while nine systems partially promote DE. Allocation formulae vary in their complexity as some systems use simple demographic parameters while others apply socio-economic status, disability, and LTC cost variations. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A minority of LTC systems fully meet DE, which is only one of the criteria in allocation of LTC resources. Some systems prefer local priority-setting and governance over DE. Countries that value DE should harmonize the eligibility criteria at the national level and allocate funds according to needs across regions.

Community participation in primary care: willingness to participate, a web survey in the Netherlands.

AimThe aim of the study is to explore to what extent members of the community are willing to participate in the way their primary care practice is organized and which characteristics of people and community are associated with this willingness. BACKGROUND: Community participation in primary care refers to involvement of community members in the organization, governance and policy making of primary care facilities. Due to demographic changes and changes in the role of patients and the community concerning health care, it becomes important to include the social environment of patients into healthcare. Community participation may help GPs to improving their practice and providing care according to the needs of the population. Interpreted this way, it may be an important contributor to quality of care. METHODS: In 2016, a web questionnaire was send to 800 members of the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel. The response rate was 34%. Willingness to participate was divided into perceived readiness, ability and time to participate. The data were analysed using frequency tables and linear regression analysis.FindingsHalf of the participants were ready to give their opinion on primary care and one-third reported willingness to participate in decision making. Participants were less optimistic about their ability to participate and the time they have available for participation. Readiness and perceived ability were mainly determined by the importance that the respondents attributed to participation. Participants with previous experience in volunteering appeared more willing to spend time on participation. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that half of the respondents are willing to participate, but they are less sure about their ability to do so and that finding time to participate is seen as problematic. Future research should focus on which characteristics influence willingness. This knowledge might help primary care facilities to recruit people more easily and successfully.

Reassessing the Global Mortality Burden of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic.

Mortality estimates of the 1918 influenza pandemic vary considerably, and recent estimates have suggested that there were 50 million to 100 million deaths worldwide. We investigated the global mortality burden using an indirect estimation approach and 2 publicly available data sets: the Human Mortality Database (13 countries) and data extracted from the records of the Statistical Abstract for British India. The all-cause Human Mortality Database was used to estimate mortality annually for 1916-1921 for detailed age groups. Three different calculation methods were applied to the data (low, medium, and high scenarios), and we used a multilevel regression model to control for distorting factors (e.g., war and the underlying time trend in mortality). Total pandemic mortality was an estimated 15 million deaths worldwide in 1918 (n = 2.5 million in 1919) after including the rates for British India and controlling for wars and the underlying mortality trend. According to our validity analysis, simulations of total number of deaths being greater than 25 million are not realistic based on the underlying mortality rates included in Human Mortality Database and in British India. Our results suggest the global death impact of the 1918 pandemic was important (n = 17.4 million) but not as severe as most frequently cited estimates.

Clinical characteristics and severity of influenza infections by virus type, subtype, and lineage: A systematic literature review.

AIM: Studies carried out in the early 2000s found that the number of influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths was highest in seasons dominated by A(H3N2), suggesting that the clinical presentation and severity of influenza may differ across virus types, subtypes, and lineages. We aimed to review the studies that examined this hypothesis. METHOD: We conducted a literature review of studies published until January 2017 that compared the clinical presentation, disease severity, and case-fatality ratio of influenza patients infected with different virus types (A, B), subtypes (pre-pandemic A(H1N1), A(H1N1)p, A(H3N2)), and lineages (Victoria, Yamagata). RESULTS: The literature search resulted in over 1700 entries: After applying in- and exclusion criteria, 47 studies were included in the literature review. Studies showed a wide diversity in setting and populations. Only a minority of studies provided results adjusted by patient's age and other potential confounders. There were very few differences in the clinical presentation of patients infected with different influenza viruses. We found weak evidence that the A(H1N1)p subtype in the post-pandemic period was more often associated with secondary bacterial pneumonia, ICU admission, and death, than the other influenza virus (sub)types. CONCLUSION: Contrary to what is commonly assumed, the causal virus subtype does not seem to be a major determinant of clinical presentation and severity of influenza illness. However, drawing conclusions was made difficult by the low comparability and methodological shortcomings of included studies, and more well-designed studies are warranted.

Paying hospital specialists: Experiences and lessons from eight high-income countries.

Payment systems for specialists in hospitals can have far reaching consequences for the efficiency and quality of care. This article presents a comparative analysis of payment systems for specialists in hospitals of eight high-income countries (Canada, England, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the USA/Medicare system). A theoretical framework highlighting the incentives of different payment systems is used to identify potentially interesting reform approaches. In five countries,most specialists work as employees - but in Canada, the Netherlands and the USA, a majority of specialists are self-employed. The main findings of our review include: (1) many countries are increasingly shifting towards blended payment systems; (2) bundled payments introduced in the Netherlands and Switzerland as well as systematic bonus schemes for salaried employees (most countries) contribute to broadening the scope of payment; (3) payment adequacy is being improved through regular revisions of fee levels on the basis of more objective data sources (e.g. in the USA) and through individual payment negotiations (e.g. in Sweden and the USA); and (4) specialist payment has so far been adjusted for quality of care only in hospital specific bonus programs. Policy-makers across countries struggle with similar challenges, when aiming to reform payment systems for specialists in hospitals. Examples from our reviewed countries may provide lessons and inspiration for the improvement of payment systems internationally.

Pharmaceutical regulation in 15 European countries review.

In the context of pharmaceutical care, policy-makers repeatedly face the challenge of balancing patient access to effective medicines with affordability and rising costs. With the aim of guiding the health policy discourse towards questions that are important to actual and potential patients, this study investigates a broad range of regulatory measures, spanning marketing authorization to generic substitution and resulting price levels in a sample of 16 European health systems (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Spain and Sweden). All countries employ a mix of regulatory mechanisms to contain pharmaceutical expenditure and ensure quality and efficiency in pharmaceutical care, albeit with varying configurations and rigour. This variation also influences the extent of publicly financed pharmaceutical costs. Overall, observed differences in pharmaceutical expenditure should be interpreted in conjunction with the differing volume and composition of consumption and price levels, as well as dispensation practices and their impact on measurement of pharmaceutical costs. No definitive evidence has yet been produced on the effects of different cost-containment measures on patient outcomes. Depending on the foremost policy concerns in each country, different levers will have to be used to enable the delivery of appropriate care at affordable prices.

Netherlands: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Dutch health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, healthcare provision, health reforms and health system performance. Without doubt, two major reforms implemented since the mid-2000s are among the main issues today. The newly implemented long-term care reform will have to realize a transition from publicly provided care to more self-reliance on the part of the citizens and a larger role for municipalities in its organization. A particular point of attention is how the new governance arrangements and responsibilities in long-term care will work together. The 2006 reform replaced the division between public and private insurance by one universal social health insurance and introduced managed competition as a driving mechanism in the healthcare system. Although the reform was initiated almost a decade ago, its stepwise implementation continues to bring changes in the healthcare system in general and in the role of actors in particular. In terms of performance, essential healthcare services are within easy reach and waiting times have been decreasing. The basic health insurance package and compensations for lower incomes protect citizens against catastrophic spending. Out-of-pocket payments are low from an international perspective. Moreover, the Dutch rate the quality of the health system and their health as good. International comparisons show that the Netherlands has low antibiotic use, a low number of avoidable hospitalizations and a relatively low avoidable mortality. National studies show that healthcare has made major contributions to the health of the Dutch population as reflected in increasing life expectancy. Furthermore, some indicators such as the prescription of generics and length of stay reveal improvements in efficiency over the past years. Nevertheless, the Netherlands still has one of the highest per capita health expenditures in Europe, although growth has slowed considerably after reverting to more traditional sector agreements on spending.

Netherlands: health system review

This analysis of the Dutch health system reviews recent developmentsin organization and governance, health financing, health care provision,health reforms and health system performance. Without doubt, two majorreforms implemented since the mid-2000s are among the main issues today.The newly implemented long-term care reform will have to realize a transitionfrom publicly provided care to more self-reliance on the part of the citizens anda larger role for municipalities in its organization. A particular point of attentionis how the new governance arrangements and responsibilities in long-term carewill work together.The 2006 reform replaced the division between public and private insuranceby one universal social health insurance and introduced managed competitionas a driving mechanism in the health care system. Although the reform wasinitiated almost a decade ago, its stepwise implementation continues to bringchanges in the health care system in general and in the role of actors in particular.In terms of performance, essential health care services are within easy reachand waiting times have been decreasing. The basic health insurance packageand compensations for lower incomes protect citizens against catastrophicspending. Out-of-pocket payments are low from an international perspective.Moreover, the Dutch rate the quality of the health system and their health asgood. International comparisons show that the Netherlands has low antibioticuse, a low number of avoidable hospitalizations and a relatively low avoidablemortality. National studies show that health care has made major contributionsto the health of the Dutch population as reflected in increasing life expectancy.Furthermore, some indicators such as the prescription of generics and lengthof stay reveal improvements in efficiency over the past years. Nevertheless, theNetherlands still has one of the highest per capita health expenditures in Europe,although growth has slowed considerably after reverting to more traditionalsector agreements on spending.

Pharmaceutical regulation in 15 European countries: review

In the context of pharmaceutical care, policy-makers repeatedly facethe challenge of balancing patient access to effective medicines withaffordability and rising costs. With the aim of guiding the health policydiscourse towards questions that are important to actual and potential patients,this study investigates a broad range of regulatory measures, spanningmarketing authorization to generic substitution and resulting price levels in asample of 16 European health systems (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England,Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland,Portugal, Scotland, Spain and Sweden).All countries employ a mix of regulatory mechanisms to containpharmaceutical expenditure and ensure quality and efficiency in pharmaceuticalcare, albeit with varying configurations and rigour. This variation alsoinfluences the extent of publicly financed pharmaceutical costs. Overall,observed differences in pharmaceutical expenditure should be interpreted inconjunction with the differing volume and composition of consumption andprice levels, as well as dispensation practices and their impact on measurementof pharmaceutical costs.No definitive evidence has yet been produced on the effects of differentcost-containment measures on patient outcomes. Depending on the foremostpolicy concerns in each country, different levers will have to be used to enablethe delivery of appropriate care at affordable prices.

The basic benefit package: composition and exceptions to the rules. A case study.

With the introduction of the Health Insurance Act in 2006 in the Netherlands, the basic package of the former sickness funds became valid for all citizens. The basic benefit package has been subject to change, responding to increasing health care expenditures, medical innovations and the economic crisis. In this paper we address the decision criteria used to assess the package annually since 2006 and describe some developments that do not follow the criteria, leading to a yo-yo effect. We discuss the formation of the decision for in- or exclusion and why some treatments seem to follow an, at first sight, arbitrary in- and exclusion pathway. We first describe the official way of establishing the basic benefit package and than will describe why some treatments follow a deviated path. We conclude that political pressure and pressure from interest groups may lead to inclusion or postponement of exclusion. Reform of the organization of certain forms of health care (in our example mental care) may lead to seemingly inconsequent changes. The yo-yo effect of some treatments or pharmaceuticals may have negative effects on health care providers, insurers and patients. The seemingly well defined criteria available for defining the basic package appear to be broadly interpretable and other influences may determine the final decision of inclusion or exclusion.