DEVELOPMENT OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN ROMANIA.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe and analyze the introduction of health technology (HTA) in Romania. METHODS: Based on a review of the literature and legislative documents and personal experiences and observations, the authors describe, evaluate, and explain the background and evolution of the HTA system. RESULTS: Initiatives to introduce HTA in Romania date from the early 1990s, but real steps were taken only in 2012 when the European Union Directive 2011/24/ on the application of patients' rights in cross-border health care had to be passed into Romanian law. The main developments consist of: the establishment of a national competent authority, the development of a methodology for the rapid assessment of drugs, setting HTA as the main tool for compiling the list of medicines to be covered by the NHIF, and capacity building initiatives. One early result of HTA implementation was an updated list of reimbursed drugs, allowing Romanian patients access to new, innovative medicines. CONCLUSIONS: In Romania, HTA become an issue for all stakeholders: decision makers are interested in cost-containment, patients in obtaining the best care, and producers in receiving acceptable reimbursement remains on the health policy agenda. Further steps are envisaged, especially for international collaboration, which is considered an important factor for HTA development in Romania.

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.

Monitoring Health Inequalities in 12 European Countries: Lessons Learned from the Joint Action Health Equity Europe.

To raise awareness about health inequalities, a well-functioning health inequality monitoring system (HIMS) is crucial. Drawing on work conducted under the Joint Action Health Equity Europe, the aim of this paper is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses in current health inequality monitoring based on lessons learned from 12 European countries and to discuss what can be done to strengthen their capacities. Fifty-five statements were used to collect information about the status of the capacities at different steps of the monitoring process. The results indicate that the preconditions for monitoring vary greatly between countries. The availability and quality of data are generally regarded as strong, as is the ability to disaggregate data by age and gender. Regarded as poorer is the ability to disaggregate data by socioeconomic factors, such as education and income, or by other measures of social position, such as ethnicity. Few countries have a proper health inequality monitoring strategy in place and, where in place, it is often regarded as poorly up to date with policymakers' needs. These findings suggest that non-data-related issues might be overlooked aspects of health inequality monitoring. Structures for stakeholder involvement and communication that attracts attention from policymakers are examples of aspects that deserve more effort.

A comparison of health system responses to COVID-19 in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania in 2020.

This article compares the health system responses to COVID-19 in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania from February 2020 until the end of 2020. It explores similarities and differences between the three countries, building primarily on the methodology and content compiled in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM). We find that all three countries entered the COVID-19 crisis with common problems, including workforce shortages and underdeveloped and underutilized preventive and primary care. The countries reacted swiftly to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, declaring a state of emergency in March 2020 and setting up new governance mechanisms. The initial response benefited from a centralized approach and high levels of public trust but proved to be only a short-term solution. Over time, governance became dominated by political and economic considerations, communication to the public became contradictory, and levels of public trust declined dramatically. The three countries created additional bed capacity for the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the first wave, but a greater challenge was to ensure a sufficient supply of qualified health workers. New digital and remote tools for the provision of non-COVID-19 health services were introduced or used more widely, with an increase in telephone or online consultations and a simplification of administrative procedures. However, the provision and uptake of non-COVID-19 health services was still affected negatively by the pandemic. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed pre-existing health system and governance challenges in the three countries, leading to a large number of preventable deaths.

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.

The unexpected outcomes of the closure of 67 inpatient care facilities in 2011 in Romania.

One of the main objectives of the National Strategy for Hospitals Rationalization approved by the Romanian Government in 2011 was to resize the hospital sector in order to improve efficiency. To this end, the government decided the closure of 67 inpatient care facilities with low efficiency scores, giving them the opportunity to become nursing homes for elderly under a national programme financed by the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection. The measure faced a tremendous public opposition that put pressure on politicians to re-open some hospitals, while other hospitals were re-opened by the governments that followed in order to consolidate their power. Since only 20 closed institutions have been reorganized as nursing homes for elderly and almost 40 are currently performing medical activities, this decision was generally perceived as a policy failure. Nevertheless, a thorough analysis, shows that the medical facilities that are still functioning - either merged with other hospitals, or re-organized as state or private medical institutions have improved efficiency by reshaping services provided to the population needs, mobilizing communities and local authorities investments and initiating public-private partnerships. Besides revealing the unexpected benefits resulted from the implementation of this policy, the Romanian experience provides some useful insights for other countries that are also facing the challenge of reducing the oversized hospital sector.

Romania: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Romanian health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. The Romanian health care system is a social health insurance system that has remained highly centralized despite recent efforts to decentralize some regulatory functions. It provides a comprehensive benefits package to the 85% of the population that is covered, with the remaining population having access to a minimum package of benefits. While every insured person has access to the same health care benefits regardless of their socioeconomic situation, there are inequities in access to health care across many dimensions, such as rural versus urban, and health outcomes also differ across these dimensions. The Romanian population has seen increasing life expectancy and declining mortality rates but both remain among the worst in the European Union. Some unfavourable trends have been observed, including increasing numbers of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses and falling immunization rates. Public sources account for over 80% of total health financing. However, that leaves considerable out-of-pocket payments covering almost a fifth of total expenditure. The share of informal payments also seems to be substantial, but precise figures are unknown. In 2014, Romania had the lowest health expenditure as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) among the EU Member States. In line with the government's objective of strengthening the role of primary care, the total number of hospital beds has been decreasing. However, health care provision remains characterized by underprovision of primary and community care and inappropriate use of inpatient and specialized outpatient care, including care in hospital emergency departments. The numbers of physicians and nurses are relatively low in Romania compared to EU averages. This has mainly been attributed to the high rates of workers emigrating abroad over the past decade, exacerbated by Romania's EU accession and the reduction of public sector salaries due to the economic crisis. Reform in the Romanian health system has been both constant and yet frequently ineffective, due in part to the high degree of political instability. Recent reforms have focused mainly on introducing cost-saving measures, for example, by attempting to shift some of the health care costs to drug manufacturers by claw-back and to the population through co-payments, and on improving the monitoring of health care expenditure.