Global review of COVID-19 mitigation strategies and their impact on cancer service disruptions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries adopted mitigation strategies to reduce disruptions to cancer services. We reviewed their implementation across health system functions and their impact on cancer diagnosis and care during the pandemic. A systematic search was performed using terms related to cancer and COVID-19. Included studies reported on individuals with cancer or cancer care services, focusing on strategies/programs aimed to reduce delays and disruptions. Extracted data were grouped into four functions (governance, financing, service delivery, and resource generation) and sub-functions of the health system performance assessment framework. We included 30 studies from 16 countries involving 192,233 patients with cancer. Multiple mitigation approaches were implemented, predominantly affecting sub-functions of service delivery to control COVID-19 infection via the suspension of non-urgent cancer care, modified treatment guidelines, and increased telemedicine use in routine cancer care delivery. Resource generation was mainly ensured through adequate workforce supply. However, less emphasis on monitoring or assessing the effectiveness and financing of these strategies was observed. Seventeen studies suggested improved service uptake after mitigation implementation, yet the resulting impact on cancer diagnosis and care has not been established. This review emphasizes the importance of developing effective mitigation strategies across all health system (sub)functions to minimize cancer care service disruptions during crises. Deficiencies were observed in health service delivery (to ensure equity), governance (to monitor and evaluate the implementation of mitigation strategies), and financing. In the wake of future emergencies, implementation research studies that include pre-prepared protocols will be essential to assess mitigation impact across cancer care services.

United Kingdom: Health System Review.

This analysis of the United Kingdom health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. It provides an overview of how the national health services operate in the four nations that make up the United Kingdom, as responsibility for organizing health financing and services was devolved from 1997. With devolution, the health systems in the United Kingdom have diverged in the details of how services are organized and paid for, but all have maintained national health services which provide universal access to a comprehensive package of services that are mostly free at the point of use. These health services are predominantly financed from general taxation and 83.5% of total health expenditure in the United Kingdom came from public sources in 2013. Life expectancy has increased steadily across the United Kingdom, but health inequalities have proved stubbornly resistant to improvement, and the gap between the most deprived and the most privileged continues to widen, rather than close. The United Kingdom faces challenges going forward, including how to cope with the needs of an ageing population, how to manage populations with poor health behaviours and associated chronic conditions, how to meet patient expectations of access to the latest available medicines and technologies, and how to adapt a system that has limited resources to expand its workforce and infrastructural capacity so it can rise to these challenges.

Moving forward: lessons for Cyprus as it implements its health insurance scheme.

The Republic of Cyprus is the only country in the European Union (EU) whose health system is comprised of public and private sectors of relatively similar sizes. The division within the health system, combined with a lack of efficient payment mechanisms and monitoring systems, contributes to inequalities in access to care, and inefficient allocation and utilization of resources. In part to address these issues, a new General Health Insurance Scheme (GHIS), was proposed by stakeholders from the Cypriot government along with a team of international consultants in 1992 and eventually approved by the Parliament in 2001. However implementation of the GHIS has been repeatedly delayed since that time due to cost concerns. In 2012, following recommendations by the European Commission, the Cypriot Cabinet decided to recommit to the reform. In light of this development, the recent Cyprus application for accession to the EU support mechanism due to the economic crisis, and the international spotlight associated with Cyprus' EU Presidency, this article discusses the anticipated Cypriot health system reform-which is now slated to go into effect in 2016-and examines lessons from other countries.

Cyprus health system review.

The health system in Cyprus comprises separate public and private systems of similar size. The public system, which is financed by the state budget, is highly centralized and tightly controlled by the Ministry of Health. Entitlement to receive free health services is based on residency and income level. The private system is almost completely separate from the public system and for the most part is unregulated and largely financed out of pocket. In many ways there is an imbalance between the public and private sectors. The public system suffers from long waiting lists for many services, a situation that has been worsened by the recent economic crisis, while the private sector has an overcapacity of expensive medical technology that is underutilized. To try to address these and other inefficiencies, a new national health insurance scheme funded by taxes and social insurance contributions has been designed to offer universal coverage and introduce competition between the public and private sectors through changes in provider payment methods. However, the scheme has not been implemented due to cost concerns. Despite the low share of economic resources dedicated to health care and access issues for some vulnerable population groups, overall Cypriots enjoy good health comparable to other high-income countries.

Is there a statistical relationship between economic crises and changes in government health expenditure growth? an analysis of twenty-four European countries.

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether, by what means, and the extent to which historically, government health care expenditure growth in Europe has changed following economic crises. DATA SOURCES: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Health Data 2011. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-country fixed effects multiple regression analysis is used to determine whether statutory health care expenditure growth in the year after economic crises differs from that which would otherwise be predicted by general economic trends. Better understanding of the mechanisms involved is achieved by distinguishing between policy responses which lead to cost-shifting and all others. FINDINGS: In the year after an economic downturn, public health care expenditure grows more slowly than would have been expected given the longer term economic climate. Cost-shifting and other policy responses are both associated with these slowdowns. However, while changes in tax-derived expenditure are associated with both cost-shifting and other policy responses following a crisis, changes in expenditure derived from social insurance have been associated only with changes in cost-shifting. CONCLUSIONS: Disproportionate cuts to the health sector, as well as reliance on cost-shifting to slow growth in health care expenditure, serve as a warning in terms of potentially negative effects on equity, efficiency, and quality of health services and, potentially, health outcomes following economic crises.