Can revenue collection for public funding in health care be progressive? An assessment of 29 Countries.

Most research on health care equity focuses on accessing services, with less attention given to how revenue is collected to pay for a country's health care bill. This article examines the progressivity of revenue collection among publicly funded sources: income taxes, social insurance (often in the form of payroll) taxes, and consumption taxes (e.g., value-added taxes). We develop methodology to derive a qualitative index that rates each of 29 high-income countries as to its progressivity or regressivity for each of the three sources of revenue. A variety of data sources are employed, some from secondary data sources and other from country representatives of the Health Systems and Policy Monitor of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. We found that countries with more progressive income tax systems used more income-based tax brackets and had larger differences in marginal tax rates between the brackets. The more progressive social insurance revenue collection systems did not have an upper income cap and exempted poorer persons or reduced their contributions. The only pattern regarding consumption taxes was that countries that exhibited the fewest overall income inequalities tended to have least regressive consumption tax policies. The article also provides several examples from the sample of countries on ways to make public revenue financing of health care more progressive.

Czechia: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Czech health system reviews developments in governance, organization, financing and delivery of care, health reforms and health system performance. Czechs have enjoyed a statutory health insurance system with a high level of financial protection, a broad benefits package and universal membership for over 30 years. The central level of the state, mostly represented through the Ministry of Health and its subordinated bodies, takes on the various roles of legislator, steward and even owner of various providers of care, while also making insurance contributions for the sizeable part of the population classified as economically inactive. Health insurance funds are responsible for contracting sufficient care provision for their members. The Czech health system has traditionally derived a majority of its financing from public sources, which stood at 81.5% of current health expenditure in 2019, as the latest available year of reference, with the rest coming from private sources. While health spending in Czechia is below the European Union (EU) average, the densities of acute care beds and primary care physicians are above respective EU averages. Ageing and a lack of qualified staff (for example, nurses in hospitals) are already putting pressure on the Czech health workforce, a bottleneck further exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, Czechia has embarked on a reform process to modernize and centralize specialized tertiary care and psychiatric care. Patients enjoy free choice of primary and specialized outpatient providers, though there are signs that accessibility is limited in some regions and for some specialties. Overall, health outcomes in terms of life expectancy, mortality and survival rates of stroke and cancer have improved in recent years, though these improvements have been slower in Czechia than in other countries. However, life expectancy dropped considerably due to heightened mortality resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. There remains considerable room for improvement in strengthening disease prevention and health promotion, particularly for dietary habits and health literacy. Various efforts to advance evidence-based interventions in the health system, such as the initiation of health care quality monitoring and health system performance assessment, will assist in further analysing Czechia's health outcomes.

Work like a Doc: A comparison of regulations on residents' working hours in 14 high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Medical residents work long, continuous hours. Working in conditions of extreme fatigue has adverse effects on the quality and safety of care, and on residents' quality of life. Many countries have attempted to regulate residents' work hours. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review residents' work hours regulations in different countries with an emphasis on night shifts. METHODS: Standardized qualitative data on residents' working hours were collected with the assistance of experts from 14 high-income countries through a questionnaire. An international comparative analysis was performed. RESULTS: All countries reviewed limit the weekly working hours; North-American countries limit to 60-80 h, European countries limit to 48 h. In most countries, residents work 24 or 26 consecutive hours, but the number of long overnight shifts varies, ranging from two to ten. Many European countries face difficulties in complying with the weekly hour limit and allow opt-out contracts to exceed it. CONCLUSIONS: In the countries analyzed, residents still work long hours. Attempts to limit the shift length or the weekly working hours resulted in modest improvements in residents' quality of life with mixed effects on quality of care and residents' education.

What is being done to respond to the rise of chronic diseases and multi-morbidity in Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia?

Although countries in central and eastern Europe (CEE) have relatively younger populations compared to the West, their populations are often affected by higher prevalence of chronic conditions and multi-morbidity and this burden will likely increase as their populations age. Relatively little is known about how these countries cater to the needs of complex patients. This Perspective piece identifies key initiatives to improve coordination of care in Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, including some pioneering and far-reaching approaches. Unfortunately, some of them have failed to be implemented, but a recent strategic commitment to care coordination in some of these countries and the dedication to rebuilding stronger health systems after the COVID-19 pandemic offer an opportunity to take stock of these past and ongoing experiences and push for more progress in this area.

Governance of academic medical centres in changing healthcare systems: An international comparison.

We provide an explorative and international comparison of the governance models of academic medical centres (AMCs). These centres face significant challenges, including disruptive external pressures and enduring financial conflicts pertaining to patient treatment, research and education. Therefore, we covered 10 European countries (Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Spain) and one associated state (Israel) in our analysis. In addition, we developed an expert questionnaire to collect data on the governance of AMCs in these 11 countries. Our results revealed no standardised definition of AMCs, with countries combining patient care, education/teaching and research differently. However, the ownership of such institutions is significantly homogeneous and is limited to public or private, nonprofit ownership. Furthermore, significant differences are associated with the (functional) integration level between the hospital and medical school. Therefore, most experts believe that the governance of AMCs will evolve into a more functionally integrated model of patient care, research and education.

A reversal of fortune: Comparison of health system responses to COVID-19 in the Visegrad group during the early phases of the pandemic.

This paper analyses the health policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the four Visegrad countries - Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia - in spring and summer 2020. The four countries implemented harsh transmission prevention measures at the beginning of the pandemic and managed to effectively avoid the first wave of infections during spring. Likewise, all four relaxed most of these measures during the summer and experienced uncontrolled growth of cases since September 2020. Along the way, there has been an erosion of public support for the government measures. This was mainly due to economic considerations taking precedent but also likely due to diminished trust in the government. All four countries have been overly reliant on their relatively high bed capacity, which they managed to further increase at the cost of elective treatments, but this could not always be supported with sufficient health workforce capacity. Finally, none of the four countries developed effective find, test, trace, isolate and support systems over the summer despite having relaxed most of the transmission protection measures since late spring. This left the countries ill-prepared for the rise in the number of COVID-19 infections they have been experiencing since autumn 2020.

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.

Concentrating stroke care provision in the Czech Republic: The establishment of Stroke Centres in 2011 has led to improved outcomes.

This article describes policy processes that have led to the re-organisation of stroke care in the Czech Republic since 2011, which has been part of a broader process of care concentration in several medical fields. Currently, stroke care is provided by 13 Comprehensive and 32 Primary Stroke Centres. The paper explains factors that supported the reform implementation, reviews implications, and discusses future challenges. Mandatory reporting of quality indicators, the introduction of a benchmarking system, integration with pre-hospital emergency care, and the introduction of countrywide patient triage have supported more timely treatment for stroke patients and better quality of care. Data from the Stroke Care Quality Indicators of the Czech Stroke Society show positive trends in many areas: the number of patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis quadrupled in eight years, with 26.4 % of all acute stroke patients receiving thrombolysis in 2018. Czech Republic now ranks third in Europe in the number of thrombolysis per population and second in the number of mechanical thrombectomies per population. The Czech experience provides an example of positive outcomes of concentrated stroke care, while highlighting the importance of proper implementation processes. In particular, it is essential to involve stakeholders and to provide reputational incentives through continuous benchmarking.

The 2018 risk-adjustment reform in the Czech Republic: Introducing Pharmacy-based Cost Groups and strengthening reinsurance.

BACKGROUND: Risk-adjustment in resource allocation is commonly used for regional redistribution or for eliminating risk selection motives of multiple statutory health insurers. In the Czech Republic, revenue redistribution between health insurers takes place since the 1990's. Since 2018, the risk-adjustment mechanism includes an adjustment for insured with chronic diseases using Pharmacy-based Cost Group (PCG) classification. In addition, retrospective compensation for very high cost patients has been strengthened. AIM: To provide an internationally relevant overview of the Czech risk-adjustment system. To assess the implication of the 2018 reform for health insurers and for the development of chronic care. METHOD: The framework of the Health Reform Monitor is used to analyse the policy process. Data from Czech health insurers and Czech Ministry of Health are used to assess likely impact of the reform. RESULTS: The reform increases coverage of predictable individual health risks and combines prospective risk-rating with strengthened retrospective risk-sharing among insurers. The reform results in moderate changes in risk-adjusted allocations of individual insurers. CONCLUSION: The Czech experience with risk-adjustment reforms is relevant for countries with multiple health insurers as well as for countries with risk-adjusted regional redistribution mechanisms. Combining prospective risk factors of age, sex, and PCGs with retrospective compensation of expensive cases limits potential losses to a manageable level, also for small risk-pools. It reduces incentives for cream skimming based on health status, enables higher use of risk-sharing contracts, and incentivizes the development of disease management programs in the Czech Republic.