The state of health in the European Union (EU-27) in 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study 2019.

BACKGROUND: The European Union (EU) faces many health-related challenges. Burden of diseases information and the resulting trends over time are essential for health planning. This paper reports estimates of disease burden in the EU and individual 27 EU countries in 2019, and compares them with those in 2010. METHODS: We used the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study estimates and 95% uncertainty intervals for the whole EU and each country to evaluate age-standardised death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates for Level 2 causes, as well as life expectancy and healthy life expectancy (HALE). RESULTS: In 2019, the age-standardised death and DALY rates in the EU were 465.8 deaths and 20,251.0 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants, respectively. Between 2010 and 2019, there were significant decreases in age-standardised death and YLL rates across EU countries. However, YLD rates remained mainly unchanged. The largest decreases in age-standardised DALY rates were observed for "HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases" and "transport injuries" (each -19%). "Diabetes and kidney diseases" showed a significant increase for age-standardised DALY rates across the EU (3.5%). In addition, "mental disorders" showed an increasing age-standardised YLL rate (14.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There was a clear trend towards improvement in the overall health status of the EU but with differences between countries. EU health policymakers need to address the burden of diseases, paying specific attention to causes such as mental disorders. There are many opportunities for mutual learning among otherwise similar countries with different patterns of disease.

Digital Health Paradox: International Policy Perspectives to Address Increased Health Inequalities for People Living With Disabilities.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the uptake of digital health worldwide and highlighted many benefits of these innovations. However, it also stressed the magnitude of inequalities regarding accessing digital health. Using a scoping review, this article explores the potential benefits of digital technologies for the global population, with particular reference to people living with disabilities, using the autism community as a case study. We ultimately explore policies in Sweden, Australia, Canada, Estonia, the United Kingdom, and the United States to learn how policies can lay an inclusive foundation for digital health systems. We conclude that digital health ecosystems should be designed with health equity at the forefront to avoid deepening existing health inequalities. We call for a more sophisticated understanding of digital health literacy to better assess the readiness to adopt digital health innovations. Finally, people living with disabilities should be positioned at the center of digital health policy and innovations to ensure they are not left behind.

Comparability in Cross-National Health Research Using Insurance Claims Data: The Cases of Germany and The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison is a key method in learning about what works in health and healthcare. We discuss the importance of comparability in cross-national health research using health insurance claims data, develop a framework to systematically asses these threats and apply it to the German (DaTraV) and Dutch (Vektis) national-level insurance claims datasets. METHODS: We propose a framework of threats to the comparability of health insurance claims databases, which includes three domains: (1) representation of populations compared, (2) data sources and data processing and (3) database contents and availability for research purposes. We apply the framework to analyze the comparability of DaTraV and Vektis databases using publicly available information (organization's websites, scientific publications) and our experiences from an interregional project on rare diseases (EMRaDi). RESULTS: Both databases were created for the same purpose (morbidity-based risk adjustment) and use the same underlying sources of data. Differences in population representation and uncertainty about data processing procedures represent potential sources of incomparability. Access for research purposes is feasible in both databases but may be subject to long processing time. CONCLUSIONS: We find important threats to the comparability of the Dutch and German national insurance claims databases and by extension to validity of any comparative health studies that rely on them. Standard adjustment techniques, making more information available about data collection and processing procedures and adding more diagnosis-related descriptors offer ways to overcome the identified threats to comparability.