COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and uptake among refugees and migrants in Greece: a retrospective analysis of national vaccination routine data.

OBJECTIVES: Refugees and migrants (R&Ms) exhibited higher risk of COVID-19 infection, and higher mortality rates during the pandemic. Acknowledging these risks, R&Ms early in the pandemic were identified by WHO as a priority vaccination group in need of protection. The aim of this study was to assess the vaccination roll-out and uptake among R&Ms residing in Reception Identification Centers (RICs) and Reception Sites (RSs) in Greece, relative to the general population. STUDY DESIGN: Nationwide observational study. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of national vaccination routine data and population census data, collected and triangulated from multiple official/governmental sources. Weekly vaccine roll-out and uptake were calculated for the general Greek population and the R&M population, through the first year of the vaccination programme in Greece (December 2020-December 2021). RESULTS: Vaccine roll-out among migrants in RICs/RSs started with a 22-week delay, compared to the general population. By the end of the first year of the vaccination programme in Greece in December 2021, the national vaccination uptake among registered R&Ms residing in official reception facilities was 27.3 % for 1st dose and 4.7 % for booster dose; considerably lower compared to the general population (69.5 % uptake for 1st dose, 64.7 % for 2nd dose, and 32.0 % for 3rd dose). CONCLUSION: Delayed vaccine roll-out and low vaccine uptake among R&Ms in Greece are signs of low prioritisation and implementation failures in the R&M vaccination strategy. In face of future public health threats, lessons should be learned, and vaccine equity should be insured for all socially vulnerable and high-risk population groups.

Essential public healthcare services utilization and excess non-COVID-19 mortality in Greece.

OBJECTIVES: Ensuring access to care for all patients-especially those with life-threatening and chronic conditions-during a pandemic is a challenge for all healthcare systems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries faced excess mortality partly attributed to disruptions in essential healthcare services provision. This study aims to estimate the utilization of public primary care and hospital services during the COVID-19 epidemic in Greece and its potential association with excess non-COVID-19 mortality in the country. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of national secondary utilization and mortality data from multiple official sources, covering the first nine months of the COVID-19 epidemic in Greece (February 26th to November 30th, 2020), was carried out. RESULTS: Utilization rates of all public healthcare services during the first nine months of the epidemic dropped significantly compared to the average utilization rates of the 2017-19 control period; hospital admissions, hospital surgical procedures, and primary care visits dropped by 17.3% (95% CI: 6.6%-28.0%), 23.1% (95% CI: 7.3%-38.9%), and 24.8% (95% CI: 13.3%-36.3%) respectively. This underutilization of essential public services-mainly due to supply restrictions such as suspension of outpatient care and cancelation of elective surgeries-is most probably related to the 3778 excess non-COVID-19 deaths (representing 62% of all-cause excess deaths) that have been reported during the first 9 months of the epidemic in the country. CONCLUSIONS: Greece's healthcare system, deeply wounded by the 2008-18 recession and austerity, was ill-resourced to cope with the challenges of the COVID-19 epidemic. Early and prolonged lockdowns have kept COVID-19 infections and deaths at relatively low levels. However, this "success" seems to have been accomplished at the expense of non-COVID-19 patients. It is important to acknowledge the "hidden epidemic" of unmet non-COVID-19 needs and increased non-COVID-19 deaths in the country and urgently strengthen public healthcare services to address it.

Fiscal federalism vs fiscal decentralization in healthcare: a conceptual framework.

INTRODUCTION: Fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization are distinct policy options in public services in general and healthcare in particular, with possibly opposed effects on equity, effectiveness, and efficiency. However, the pertinent discourse often reflects confusion between the concepts or conflation thereof. METHODS: This paper performs a narrative review of theoretical literature on decentralization. The study offers clear definitions of the concepts of fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization and provides an overview of the potential implications of each policy for healthcare systems. RESULTS: The interpretation of the literature identified three different dimensions of decentralization: political, administrative, economic. Economic decentralization can be further implemented through two different policy options: fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization. Fiscal federalism is the transfer of spending authority of a centrally pooled public health budget to local governments or authorities. Countries like the UK, Cuba, Denmark, and Brazil mostly rely on fiscal federalism mechanisms for healthcare financing. Fiscal decentralization consists of transferring both pooling and spending responsibilities from the central government to local authorities. Contrarily to fiscal federalism, the implementation of fiscal decentralization requires as a precondition the fragmentation of the national pool into many local pools. The restructuring of the pooling system may limit the cross-subsidization effect between high- and low-income groups and areas that a central pool guarantees; thus, severely affecting local equality and equity. With the limited availability of local public resources in poorer regions, the quality of services drops, increasing the disparity gap between areas. Evidence from Italy, Spain, China, and Ivory Coast -countries with a strong fiscal decentralization element in their healthcare services- suggests that fiscal decentralization has positive effects on the infant mortality rate. However, it decreases healthcare resources as well as access to services, fostering spatial inequities. CONCLUSION: If public resources are and remain adequate, allocation follows equitable criteria, and local communities are involved in the decision-making debate, fiscal federalism -rather than fiscal decentralization- appear to be an adequate policy option to improve the healthcare services and population's health nationwide and achieve health sector economic decentralization. HIPPOKRATIA 2020, 24(3): 107-113.