Health system description and assessment: a scoping review of templates for systematic analyses.

BACKGROUND: Understanding and comparing health systems is key for cross-country learning and health system strengthening. Templates help to develop standardised and coherent descriptions and assessments of health systems, which then allow meaningful analyses and comparisons. Our scoping review aims to provide an overview of existing templates, their content and the way data is presented. MAIN BODY: Based on the WHO building blocks framework, we defined templates as having (1) an overall framework, (2) a list of indicators or topics, and (3) instructions for authors, while covering (4) the design of the health system, (5) an assessment of health system performance, and (6) should cover the entire health system. We conducted a scoping review of grey literature published between 2000 and 2023 to identify templates. The content of the identified templates was screened, analyzed and compared. We found 12 documents that met our inclusion criteria. The building block `health financing´ is covered in all 12 templates; and many templates cover ´service delivery´ and ´health workforce'. Health system performance is frequently assessed with regard to 'access and coverage', 'quality and safety', and 'financial protection'. Most templates do not cover 'responsiveness' and 'efficiency'. Seven templates combine quantitative and qualitative data, three are mostly quantitative, and two are primarily qualitative. Templates cover data and information that is mostly relevant for specific groups of countries, e.g. a particular geographical region, or for high or for low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Templates for LMICs rely more on survey-based indicators than administrative data. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first scoping review of templates for standardized descriptions of health systems and assessments of their performance. The implications are that (1) templates can help analyze health systems across countries while accounting for context; (2) template-guided analyses of health systems could underpin national health policies, strategies, and plans; (3) organizations developing templates could learn from approaches of other templates; and (4) more research is needed on how to improve templates to better achieve their goals. Our findings provide an overview and help identify the most important aspects and topics to look at when comparing and analyzing health systems, and how data are commonly presented. The templates were created by organizations with different agendas and target audiences, and with different end products in mind. Comprehensive health systems analyses and comparisons require production of quantitative indicators and complementing them with qualitative information to build a holistic picture. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:   Not applicable.

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.

Governing health service purchasing agencies: Comparative study of national purchasing agencies in 10 countries in eastern Europe and central Asia.

This study discusses findings from comparative case studies of the governance of health services purchasing agencies in 10 eastern European and central Asian countries established over the past 30 years, and the relationship between governance attributes, institutional development, and the progress made in strategic purchasing. The feasibility and effectiveness of implementing international recommendations from the health sector and wider public sector governance literature and practice are also discussed. The study finds that only those countries that have transitioned from middle to high-income status during the study period have been successful in comprehensively and consistently implementing internationally recommended practices. Moreover, these countries have made varying progress in developing capable purchasers with technical and operational independence, as well as advancing strategic purchasing. However, the current middle-income countries (MICs) in the study have implemented only certain elements of recommended governance practices, often superficially. Notably, the study reveals that some international recommendations, particularly those related to higher degrees of purchaser autonomy and the associated governance structures observed in western European social health insurance funds, have proven challenging to implement effectively or sustain in the MICs. None of the MICs succeeded in strategic purchasing beyond a limited agenda or scale, and even then, only implementing and sustaining them during favorable conditions. Difficulties in maintaining these achievements can be attributed, in part, to governance deficiencies. However, setbacks are commonly linked to periods of political and economic instability, which in turn lead to fluctuations in policy priorities, institutional instability, and inadequacies in health budgets. The study findings point to some actions related to civil society and stakeholder engagement, accountability frameworks, and digitalization in MICs that can facilitate continuity in health reforms and the functioning of purchasing institutions despite these challenges. The findings of the study provide important lessons for countries designing or newly implementing health purchasing agencies and for countries reviewing the performance and governance of their health purchasing agencies with a view to developing or strengthening strategic purchasing.

Challenges facing mental health systems arising from the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from 14 European and North American countries.

We assessed challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic presented for mental health systems and the responses to these challenges in 14 countries in Europe and North America. Experts from each country filled out a structured questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions between January and June 2021. We conducted thematic analysis to investigate the qualitative responses to open-ended questions, and we summarized the responses to closed-ended survey items on changes in telemental health policies and regulations. Findings revealed that many countries grappled with the rising demand for mental health services against a backdrop of mental health provider shortages and challenges responding to workforce stress and burnout. All countries in our sample implemented new policies or initiatives to strengthen mental health service delivery - with more than two-thirds investing to bolster their specialized mental health care sector. There was a universal shift to telehealth to deliver a larger portion of mental health services in all 14 countries, which was facilitated by changes in national regulations and policies; 11 of the 14 participating countries relaxed regulations and 10 of 14 countries made changes to reimbursement policies to facilitate telemental health care. These findings provide a first step to assess the long-term challenges and re-organizational effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health systems in Europe and North America.

Oral health care in Europe: Financing, access and provision.

With growing awareness of the large burden of oral diseases and how limited coverage affects both access and affordability, oral health policy has been receiving increased attention in recent years. This culminated in the adoption of the WHO resolution on Oral Health in 2021, which urges Member States to better integrate oral health into their universal health coverage and noncommunicable disease agendas. This study investigates major patterns and developments in oral health status, financing, coverage, access, and service provision of oral health care in 31 European countries. While most countries cover oral health care for vulnerable population groups, the level of statutory coverage varies widely across Europe resulting in different coverage and financing schemes for the adult population. On average, one third of dental care spending is borne by public sources and the remaining part is paid out-of-pocket or by voluntary health insurance. This has important ramifications for financial protection and access to care, leaving many dental problems untreated. Overall, unmet needs for dental care are higher than for other types of care and particularly affect low-income groups. Dental care is undergoing various structural changes. The number of dentists is increasing, and the composition of the health workforce is starting to change in many countries. Dental care is increasingly provided in group practices and by practices that are part of private equity firms. Although there are (early) signs of a shift towards more preventive therapies and policies of oral diseases, dental care overall remains focused on treatment. A lack of data affects all areas of oral health care. Current health information systems only collect very few indicators on oral health and oral health care. An improved evidence base would allow more meaningful assessments and comparisons of oral health systems performance. This in turn would allow better informed policy decisions and enable better targeted and more effective oral health interventions.

Strategic purchasing and health systems resilience: Lessons from COVID-19 in selected European countries.

Strategic purchasing is a popular and frequently proposed policy for improving the efficiency and adaptiveness of health systems. The COVID-19 pandemic shocked health systems, creating a test of the adaptability and resiliency of their key features. This research study explores (i) what role purchasing systems and agents played in the COVID-19 pandemic, (ii) if it was strategic, and (iii) how it has contributed to a resilient health system. We conducted a qualitative, comparative study of six countries in the European Union-focusing on three as in-depth case studies-to understand how and when strategic purchasers responded to seven clearly defined health system "shocks" that they all experienced during the pandemic. We found that every case country relied on the federal government to fund and respond to the pandemic. Purchasers often had very limited, and if any then only passive, roles.

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.

Transformations in the landscape of primary health care during COVID-19: Themes from the European region.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted primary health care (PHC) across Europe. Since March 2020, the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) has documented country-level responses using a structured template distributed to country experts. We extracted all PHC-relevant data from the HSRM and iteratively developed an analysis framework examining the models of PHC delivery employed by PHC providers in response to the pandemic, as well as the government enablers supporting these models. Despite the heterogenous PHC structures and capacities across European countries, we identified three prevalent models of PHC delivery employed: (1) multi-disciplinary primary care teams coordinating with public health to deliver the emergency response and essential services; (2) PHC providers defining and identifying vulnerable populations for medical and social outreach; and (3) PHC providers employing digital solutions for remote triage, consultation, monitoring and prescriptions to avoid unnecessary contact. These were supported by government enablers such as increasing workforce numbers, managing demand through public-facing risk communications, and prioritising pandemic response efforts linked to vulnerable populations and digital solutions. We discuss the importance of PHC systems maintaining and building on these models of PHC delivery to strengthen preparedness for future outbreaks and better respond to the contemporary health challenges.

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.

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.

Health reforms in the United States: The outlook after Biden's first 100 days.

The November 2020 election of Joe Biden, coupled with the election of a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, has the potential to dramatically alter the direction of health policy in the United States. Donald Trump failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) but he managed to whittle down aspects of coverage protection. Historically, the first 100 days of a presidency are a bellwether of accomplishments to come. During this period Biden reversed several of Trump policies through both executive orders and a large economic stimulus bill. The stimulus bill substantially increased premium subsidies to encourage people to purchase health insurance coverage, albeit with funding guaranteed only for a two-year period. Larger accomplishments, such as making these enhanced premium subsidies permanent, reining in prescription drug spending, enacting a public health insurance option to compete with private insurers, and improving public health and health equity, will require further legislation. The political environment in the U.S. is now extraordinarily contentious. Each of these proposed initiatives faces major political hurdles and the window of opportunity for enacting each of these goals very well may be brief.

"Top-Three" health reforms in 31 high-income countries in 2018 and 2019: an expert informed overview.

BACKGROUND: High-income countries continuously reform their healthcare systems. Often, similar reforms are introduced concomitantly across countries. Although national policymakers would benefit from considering reform experiences abroad, exchange is limited. This paper provides an overview of health reform trends in 31 high-income countries in 2018 and 2019, i.e., before Covid-19. METHODS: Information was collected from national experts from the Health Systems and Policy Monitor network. Experts were asked to report on the three "top" national health reforms 2018 and 2019. In 2019, they provided an update of 2018 reforms. Reforms were assigned to one of 11 clusters and identified as one of seven different reform types. RESULTS: 81 reforms were reported in 28 countries in 2018. 44/81 went to four clusters: 'insurance coverage & resource generation', 'governance', 'healthcare purchasing & payment', and 'organisation of hospital care'. In 2019, 86 reforms in 30 countries were reported. 48/86 fell under 'organisation of primary & ambulatory care', 'governance', 'care coordination & specialised care', and 'organisation of hospital care'. Most 2018 reforms were reported ongoing in 2019; 27 implemented; seven abandoned. Health agency-led reforms were implemented most frequently, followed by central government-legislated reforms. CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers can leverage international experience of distinct reform approaches addressing similar challenges and similar approaches to address distinct problems. Such knowledge may help inspire or support future successful health reform processes.

Who should be vaccinated first? Comparing vaccine prioritization strategies in Israel and European countries using the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor.

The rapid rollout of Israel's vaccination program has led to considerable international interest. In this brief commentary we consider how the criteria for vaccination priority groups differ between Israel and selected European countries. We argue that following the Israeli approach of using broad criteria for prioritization- i.e. having fewer groups and a lower age threshold- could have several beneficial effects, including more manageable logistics and fewer roll out delays, as well as potentially reducing pressure on hospitals. With an increasing supply of vaccines becoming available rapidly in much of Europe, countries could consider following the approach of Israel and adopting broader priority criteria going forward.

Gaps in coverage and access in the European Union.

This study identifies gaps in universal health coverage in the European Union, using a questionnaire sent to the Health Systems and Policy Monitor network of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. The questionnaire was based on a conceptual framework with four access dimensions: population coverage, service coverage, cost coverage, and service access. With respect to population coverage, groups often excluded from statutory coverage include asylum seekers and irregular residents. Some countries exclude certain social-professional groups (e.g. civil servants) from statutory coverage but cover these groups under alternative schemes. In terms of service coverage, excluded or restricted services include optical treatments, dental care, physiotherapy, reproductive health services, and psychotherapy. Early access to new and expensive pharmaceuticals is a concern, especially for rare diseases and cancers. As to cost coverage, some countries introduced protective measures for vulnerable patients in the form of exemptions or ceilings from user chargers, especially for deprived groups or patients with accumulation of out-of-pocket spending. For service access, common issues are low perceived quality and long waiting times, which are exacerbated for rural residents who also face barriers from physical distance. Some groups may lack physical or mental ability to properly formulate their request for care. Currently, available indicators fail to capture the underlying causes of gaps in coverage and access.

Power and Purchasing: Why Strategic Purchasing Fails.

Policy Points Strategically purchasing health care has been and continues to be a popular policy idea around the world. Key asymmetries in information, market power, political power, and financial power hinder the effective implementation of strategic purchasing. Strategic purchasing has consistently failed to live up to its promises for these reasons. Future strategies based on strategic purchasing should tailor their expectations to its real effectiveness. CONTEXT: Strategic purchasing of health care has been a popular policy idea around the world for decades, with advocates claiming that it can lead to improved quality, patient satisfaction, efficiency, accountability, and even population health. In this article, we report the results of an inquiry into the implementation and effects of strategic purchasing. METHODS: We conducted three in-depth case studies of England, the Netherlands, and the United States. We reviewed definitions of purchasing, including its slow acquisition of adjectives such as strategic, and settled on a definition of purchasing that distinguishes it from the mere use of contracts to regulate stable interorganizational relationships. The case studies review the career of strategic purchasing in three different systems where its installation and use have been a policy priority for years. FINDINGS: No existing health care system has effective strategic purchasing because of four key asymmetries: market power asymmetry, information asymmetry, financial asymmetry, and political power asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: Further investment in policies that are premised on the effectiveness of strategic purchasing, or efforts to promote it, may not be worthwhile. Instead, policymakers may need to focus on the real sources of power in a health care system. Policy for systems with existing purchasing relationships should take into account the asymmetries, ways to work with them, and the constraints that they create.

Poland: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Polish health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. In late 2017, the Polish government committed to increase the share of public expenditures on health to 6% of GDP by 2024. If the GDP continues to grow in the years to come, this will present an opportunity to tackle mounting health challenges such as socioeconomic inequalities in health, high rates of obesity, rising burden of mental disorders and population ageing that put strain on health care resources. It is also an opportunity to tackle certain longstanding imbalances in the health sector, including overreliance on acute hospital care compared with other types of care, including ambulatory care and long-term care; shortages of human resources; the negligible role of health promotion and disease prevention vis-a-vis curative care; and poor financial situation in the hospital sector. Finally, the additional resources are much needed to implement important ongoing reforms, including the reform of primary care. The resources have to be spent wisely and waste should be minimized. The introduction, in 2016, of a special system (IOWISZ) of assessing investments in the health sector that require public financing (including from the EU funds) as well as the work undertaken by the Polish health technology assessment (HTA) agency (AOTMiT), which evaluates health technologies and publicly-financed health policy programmes as well as sets prices of goods and services, should help ensure that these goals are achieved. Recent reforms, such as the ongoing reform of primary care that seeks to improve coordination of care and the introduction of the hospital network, go in the right direction; however, a number of longstanding unresolved problems, such as hospital indebtedness, need to be tackled.

The 2017 reform to improve financial sustainability of national health insurance in Estonia: Analysis and first lessons on broadening the revenue base.

In 2017, the Estonian government addressed the longstanding challenge of financial sustainability of the health system by expanding its revenue base. As a relatively low-spending country on health, Estonia relies predominantly on payroll contributions from the working population, which exposes the system to economic shocks and population ageing. In an effort to reduce these vulnerabilities, Estonia will gradually introduce a government transfer on behalf of pensioners, although long-term sustainability of the health system could still prove challenging as the overall health spending as a percentage of GDP is not expected to substantially increase. Estonia has rolled out the reform according to plan, but it has led to debate about the need to achieve universal population coverage (currently at about 95%). Moreover, the Estonian experience also holds important lessons for other countries looking to reform their health system. For example, policymakers should recognize that reforms require extensive preparation using consistent messaging over a long period of time, also to prevent prioritising short term and popular fixes over structural reforms. Additionally, collaboration between the health and financial ministries throughout the reform increases the buy-in for the reform and likelihood of adoption. Furthermore, health professionals play a significant role in advocacy, and seeking support from this group can smooth the path towards health system reform.