A call for action to establish a research agenda for building a future health workforce in Europe.

The importance of a sustainable health workforce is increasingly recognised. However, the building of a future health workforce that is responsive to diverse population needs and demographic and economic change remains insufficiently understood. There is a compelling argument to be made for a comprehensive research agenda to address the questions. With a focus on Europe and taking a health systems approach, we introduce an agenda linked to the 'Health Workforce Research' section of the European Public Health Association. Six major objectives for health workforce policy were identified: (1) to develop frameworks that align health systems/governance and health workforce policy/planning, (2) to explore the effects of changing skill mixes and competencies across sectors and occupational groups, (3) to map how education and health workforce governance can be better integrated, (4) to analyse the impact of health workforce mobility on health systems, (5) to optimise the use of international/EU, national and regional health workforce data and monitoring and (6) to build capacity for policy implementation. This article highlights critical knowledge gaps that currently hamper the opportunities of effectively responding to these challenges and advising policy-makers in different health systems. Closing these knowledge gaps is therefore an important step towards future health workforce governance and policy implementation. There is an urgent need for building health workforce research as an independent, interdisciplinary and multi-professional field. This requires dedicated research funding, new academic education programmes, comparative methodology and knowledge transfer and leadership that can help countries to build a people-centred health workforce.

Health professional mobility in the European Union: Exploring the equity and efficiency of free movement.

The WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel is a landmark in the health workforce migration debate. Yet its principles apply only partly within the European Union (EU) where freedom of movement prevails. The purpose of this article is to explore whether free mobility of health professionals contributes to "equitably strengthen health systems" in the EU. The article proposes an analytical tool (matrix), which looks at the effects of health professional mobility in terms of efficiency and equity implications at three levels: for the EU, for destination countries and for source countries. The findings show that destinations as well as sources experience positive and negative effects, and that the effects of mobility are complex because they change, overlap and are hard to pin down. The analysis suggests that there is a risk that free health workforce mobility disproportionally benefits wealthier Member States at the expense of less advantaged EU Member States, and that mobility may feed disparities as flows redistribute resources from poorer to wealthier EU countries. The article argues that the principles put forward by the WHO Code appear to be as relevant within the EU as they are globally.

Reprint of: Dream vs. reality: seven case-studies on the desirability and feasibility of cross-border hospital collaboration in Europe.

Despite being a niche phenomenon, cross-border health care collaboration receives a lot of attention in the EU and figures visibly on the policy agenda, in particular since the policy process which eventually led to the adoption of Directive 2011/24/EU. One of the underlying assumptions is that cross-border collaboration is desirable, providing justification to both the European Commission and to border-region stakeholders for promoting it. The purpose of this paper is to question this assumption and to examine the role of actors in pushing (or not) for cross-border collaboration. The analysis takes place in two parts. First, the EU policies to promote cross-border collaboration and the tools employed are examined, namely (a) use of European funds to sponsor concrete border-region collaboration projects, (b) use of European funds to sponsor research which gives visibility to cross-border collaboration, and (c) use of the European Commission's newly acquired legal mandate to encourage "Member States to cooperate in cross-border health care provision in border-regions" (Art. 10) and support "Member States in the development of European reference networks between health care providers and centres of expertise" (Art. 12). Second, evidence gathered in 2011-2013 from seven European border-regions on hospital cross-border collaboration is systematically reviewed to assess the reality of cross-border collaboration - can it work and when, and why do actors engage in cross-border collaboration? The preliminary findings suggest that while the EU plays a prominent role in some border-region initiatives, cross-border collaboration needs such a specific set of circumstances to work that it is questionable whether it can effectively be promoted. Moreover, local actors make use of the EU (as a source of funding, legislation or legitimisation) to serve their needs.

Dream vs. reality: seven case-studies on the desirability and feasibility of cross-border hospital collaboration in Europe.

Despite being a niche phenomenon, cross-border health care collaboration receives a lot of attention in the EU and figures visibly on the policy agenda, in particular since the policy process which eventually led to the adoption of Directive 2011/24/EU. One of the underlying assumptions is that cross-border collaboration is desirable, providing justification to both the European Commission and to border-region stakeholders for promoting it. The purpose of this paper is to question this assumption and to examine the role of actors in pushing (or not) for cross-border collaboration. The analysis takes place in two parts. First, the EU policies to promote cross-border collaboration and the tools employed are examined, namely (a) use of European funds to sponsor concrete border-region collaboration projects, (b) use of European funds to sponsor research which gives visibility to cross-border collaboration, and (c) use of the European Commission's newly acquired legal mandate to encourage "Member States to cooperate in cross-border health care provision in border-regions" (Art. 10) and support "Member States in the development of European reference networks between health care providers and centres of expertise" (Art. 12). Second, evidence gathered in 2011-2013 from seven European border-regions on hospital cross-border collaboration is systematically reviewed to assess the reality of cross-border collaboration - can it work and when, and why do actors engage in cross-border collaboration? The preliminary findings suggest that while the EU plays a prominent role in some border-region initiatives, cross-border collaboration needs such a specific set of circumstances to work that it is questionable whether it can effectively be promoted. Moreover, local actors make use of the EU (as a source of funding, legislation or legitimisation) to serve their needs.

The possible effects of health professional mobility on access to care for patients.

The chapter explains how health professional mobility impacts on the resources and capacity available within a health system, and how this affects service delivery and access. The contrasting experiences of destination countries, which receive foreign inflows of health professionals, and of source countries, which loose workforce due to outflows, are illustrated with country examples. The evidence opens the debate on how EU countries compete for health workforce, what this means for resource-strained, crisis-hit Member States, and whether there is any room for intra-European solidarity. The nexus between patient mobility and health professional mobility is moreover highlighted. This take on free mobility in the EU has received little attention, and while evidence is scarce, it calls for careful analysis when considering the possible effects of free movement on access to care in national health systems. The chapter reformulates the question on 'who wins' and 'who looses' from freedom of movement in the EU to turn our attention away from those who go abroad for care and instead focus on those who stay at home.

Analysing arrangements for cross-border mobility of patients in the European Union: a proposal for a framework.

This paper proposes a framework for analyzing arrangements set up to facilitate cross-border mobility of patients in the European Union. Exploiting both conceptual analysis and data from a range of case studies carried out in a number of European projects, and building on Walt and Gilson's model of policy analysis, the framework consists of five major components, each with a subset of categories or issues: (1) The actors directly and indirectly involved in setting up and promoting arrangements, (2) the content of the arrangements, classified into four categories (e.g. purchaser-provider and provider-provider or joint cross-border providers), (3) the institutional framework of the arrangements (including the underlying European and national legal frameworks, health systems' characteristics and payment mechanisms), (4) the processes that have led to the initiation and continuation, or cessation, of arrangements, (5) contextual factors (e.g. political or cultural) that impact on cross-border patient mobility and thus arrangements to facilitate them. The framework responds to what is a clearly identifiable demand for a means to analyse these interrelated concepts and dimensions. We believe that it will be useful to researchers studying cross-border collaborations and policy makers engaging in them.

Travelling home for treatment and EU patients' rights to care abroad: results of a survey among German students at Maastricht University.

Empirical evidence on patient mobility in Europe is lacking despite widespread legal, policy and media attention which the phenomenon attracts. This paper presents quantitative data on the health care seeking behaviour of German students at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. A cross-sectional survey design was applied with a mixed-methods approach including open and closed questions. Questionnaire items were based on a theoretical model of patient mobility and input from focus group discussions with German students living in Maastricht. 235 valid surveys were completed, representing ca. 8% of the target population. Data collection took place in Oct-Dec 2010. Of respondents who received medical care over the last two years, 97% returned to Germany; of these, 76% travelled to their home city for medical treatment. 72% received care only in Germany, i.e. not even once in Maastricht. Distance partly influenced whether students travelled to Germany, returned home or stayed in Maastricht, and the type of care accessed. Key motivations were familiarity with home providers/system, and reimbursement issues. In the context of the new EU Directive on patients' rights, the findings call into question whether Europeans use entitlements to cross-border care and what the real potential of patient mobility is. The results demonstrate the existence and magnitude of return movements as a sub-group of patient mobility.

A typology of cross-border patient mobility.

Based on systematic observation and analysis of available evidence, we propose a typology of cross-border patient mobility (rather than the so-called 'medical tourism') defined as the movement of a patient travelling to another country to seek planned health care. The typology is constructed around two dimensions based on the questions 'why do patients go abroad for planned health care?' and 'how is care abroad paid for?' Four types of patient motivations and two funding types have been identified. Combined in a matrix, they make eight possible scenarios of patient mobility each illustrated with international examples.

Purchasing health services abroad: practices of cross-border contracting and patient mobility in six European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Contracting health services outside the public, statutory health system entails purchasing capacity from domestic non-public providers or from providers abroad. Over the last decade, these practices have made their way into European health systems, brought about by performance-oriented reforms and EU principles of free movement. The aim of the article is to explain the development, functioning, purposes and possible implications of cross-border contracting. METHODS: Primary and secondary sources on purchasing from providers abroad have been collected in a systematic way and analysed in a structured frame. RESULTS: We found practices in six European countries. The findings suggest that purchasers from benefit-in-kind systems contract capacity abroad when this responds to unmet demand; pressures domestic providers; and/or offers financial advantages, especially where statutory purchasers compete. Providers which receive patients tend to be located in countries where treatment costs are lower and/or where providers compete. The modalities of purchasing and delivering care abroad vary considerably depending on contracts being centralised or direct, the involvement of middlemen, funding and pricing mechanisms, cross-border pathways and volumes of patient flows. CONCLUSIONS: The arrangements and concepts which cross-border contracting relies on suggest that statutory health purchasers, under pressure to deliver value for money and striving for cost-efficiency, experiment with new ways of organising health services for their populations.