We Need a Combination of Approaches to Evaluate Health System Resilience Comment on "Re-evaluating Our Knowledge of Health System Resilience During COVID-19: Lessons From the First Two Years of the Pandemic".

Health system resilience has become a desirable health system attribute in the current permacrisis environment. The article by Saulnier and colleagues reviews the literature on health system resilience and refines the concept, pinpointing dimensions of resilience governance that have not reached consensus, or that are missing from the literature. In this commentary we complement the findings by discussing different conceptual frameworks for understanding resilience and introducing resilience testing, a method to assess health system resilience using a hypothetical shock scenario. Resilience testing is a mixed-methods approach that combines a review of existing data with a structured workshop, where health system experts collaboratively assess the resilience of their health system. The new method is proposed as a tool for policy-making, as the results can identify attributes of the current health system that may hinder or boost a resilient response to the next crisis.

Assessing the equity and coverage policy sensitivity of financial protection indicators in Europe.

Progress towards universal health coverage is monitored by the incidence of catastrophic spending. Two catastrophic spending indicators are commonly used in Europe: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator 3.8.2 and the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe) indicator. The use of different indicators can cause confusion, especially if they produce contradictory results and policy implications. We use harmonised household budget survey data from 27 European Union countries covering 505,217 households and estimate the risk of catastrophic spending, conditional on household characteristics and the design of medicines co-payments. We calculate the predicted probability of catastrophic spending for particular households, which we call LISAs, under combinations of medicines co-payment policies and compare predictions across the two indicators. Using the WHO/Europe indicator, any combination of two or more protective policies (i.e. low fixed co-payments instead of percentage co-payments, exemptions for low-income households and income-related caps on co-payments) is associated with a statistically significant lower risk of catastrophic spending. Using the SDG indicator, confidence intervals for every combination of protective policies overlap with those for no protective policies. Although out-of-pocket medicines spending is a strong predictor of catastrophic spending using both indicators, the WHO/Europe indicator is more sensitive to medicines co-payment policies than the SDG indicator, making it a better indicator to monitor health system equity and progress towards UHC in Europe.

Pandemic preparedness and health system resilience in 14 European countries.

Objective: To assess national pandemic preparedness and response plans from a health system perspective to determine the extent to which implementation strategies that support health system performance have been included. Methods: We systematically mapped pandemic preparedness and response implementation strategies that improve resilience to pandemics onto the Health System Performance Assessment Framework for Universal Health Coverage. Using this framework, we conducted a document analysis of 14 publicly available national influenza pandemic preparedness plans, submitted to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, to assess how well health system functions are accounted for in each plan. Findings: Implementation strategies found in national influenza pandemic preparedness plans do not systematically consider all health system functions. Instead, they mostly focus on specific aspects of governance. In contrast, little to no mention is made of implementation strategies that aim to strengthen health financing. There was also a lack of implementation strategies to strengthen the health workforce, ensure availability of medical equipment and infrastructure, govern the generation of resources and ensure delivery of public health services. Conclusion: While national influenza pandemic preparedness plans often include provisions to support health system governance, implementation strategies that support other health system functions, namely, resource generation, service delivery, and in particular, financing, are given less attention. These oversights in key planning documents may undermine health system resilience when public health emergencies occur.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Towards an understanding of resilience: responding to health systems shocks.

The recent outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in West Africa has drawn attention to the role and responsiveness of health systems in the face of shock. It brought into sharp focus the idea that health systems need not only to be stronger but also more 'resilient'. In this article, we argue that responding to shocks is an important aspect of resilience, examining the health system behaviour in the face of four types of contemporary shocks: the financial crisis in Europe from 2008 onwards; climate change disasters; the EVD outbreak in West Africa 2013-16; and the recent refugee and migration crisis in Europe. Based on this analysis, we identify '3 plus 2' critical dimensions of particular relevance to health systems' ability to adapt and respond to shocks; actions in all of these will determine the extent to which a response is successful. These are three core dimensions corresponding to three health systems functions: 'health information systems' (having the information and the knowledge to make a decision on what needs to be done); 'funding/financing mechanisms' (investing or mobilising resources to fund a response); and 'health workforce' (who should plan and implement it and how). These intersect with two cross-cutting aspects: 'governance', as a fundamental function affecting all other system dimensions; and predominant 'values' shaping the response, and how it is experienced at individual and community levels. Moreover, across the crises examined here, integration within the health system contributed to resilience, as does connecting with local communities, evidenced by successful community responses to Ebola and social movements responding to the financial crisis. In all crises, inequalities grew, yet our evidence also highlights that the impact of shocks is amenable to government action. All these factors are shaped by context. We argue that the '3 plus 2' dimensions can inform pragmatic policies seeking to increase health systems resilience.

The epidemiological transition in Eastern and Western Europe: a historic natural experiment.

Background: The continent of Europe has experienced remarkable changes in the past 25 years, providing scope for natural experiments that offer insight into the complex determinants of health. Methods: We analysed trends in life expectancy at birth in three parts of Europe, those countries that were members of the European Union (EU) prior to 2004, countries that joined the European Union since then, and the twelve countries that emerged from the Soviet Union to form the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The contribution of deaths at different ages to these changes was assessed using Arriaga's method of decomposing changes in life expectancy. Results: Europe remains divided geographically, with an East-West gradient. The former Soviet countries experienced a marked initial decline in life expectancy and have only recovered after 2005. However, the situation for those of working ages is little better than in 1990. The pre-2004 EU has seen substantial gains throughout the past 25 years, although there is some evidence that this may be slowing, or even reversing, at older ages. The countries joining the EU in 2004 subsequently began to see some improvements in the early 1990s, but have experienced larger gains since 2000. Conclusions: Europe offers a valuable natural laboratory for understanding the impact of political, economic, and social changes on health. While the historic divisions of Europe are still visible, there is also evidence that individual countries are doing better or worse than their neighbours, providing many lessons that can be learned from.

Austerity and health: the impact in the UK and Europe.

Austerity measures-reducing social spending and increasing taxation-hurts deprived groups the most. Less is known about the impact on health. In this short review, we evaluate the evidence of austerity's impact on health, through two main mechanisms: a 'social risk effect' of increasing unemployment, poverty, homelessness and other socio-economic risk factors (indirect), and a 'healthcare effect' through cuts to healthcare services, as well as reductions in health coverage and restricting access to care (direct). We distinguish those impacts of economic crises from those of austerity as a response to it. Where possible, data from across Europe will be drawn upon, as well as more extensive analysis of the UK's austerity measures performed by the authors of this review.

The role of the European Structural and Investment Funds in Financing Health System in Lithuania: Experience from 2007 to 2013 funding period and implications for the future.

European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are a major source of investments in the newer EU member states. In Lithuania's health sector, the amount for the 2007-2013 funding period reached more than €400 million. In this paper we aim to (i) identify the key areas in the health sector which were supported by ESIF, (ii) determine the extent to which ESIF assisted the implementation of the ongoing health system reform; and (iii) assess whether the use of funds has led to expected improvements in healthcare. We review the national strategic documents and legislation, and perform calculations to determine funding allocations by specific area, based on the available data. We analyse changes according to a set of selected indicators. We find that implementation of programmes funded by the ESIF lacks formal evaluation. Existing evidence suggests that some improvement has been achieved by 2013. However, there are persisting challenges, including failure to reach a broad agreement on selection of health and healthcare indicators, lack of transparency in allocations, and absence of coherent assessment measures of healthcare quality and accessibility.