A Framework for Studying EU Health Policy through a Political Determinants of Health Lens: The Case of the European Health Union.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how the European Union (EU) impacts national health systems and people's health. In November 2020, the European Commission launched the European Health Union (EHU) to better coordinate and maximise EU Member States' abilities to deal with cross-border health threats. This paper scrutinises the early institutionalisation of the EHU and its implications for EU health policy as a political determinant of health (PDoH). METHODS: The study explores how EU health policy may be appreciated from a PDoH perspective. It draws from EU documents and existing research to analyse the early-stage institutionalisation of the EHU. The study complements this policy output-focused perspective with an outcome-based exploratory assessment of EU health policy as a PDoH focusing on three examples: joint vaccine procurement, health investments under the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the development of a European Health Data Space. FINDINGS: The study shows that the policy change triggered by the EHU and the potential impact on citizens' health are not necessarily congruent: modest change can have a potentially strong impact on health outcomes and vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: The study argues that the PDoH perspective provides a useful and complementary approach to policy output-based perspectives, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of the EU's role in health.

How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect inpatient care for children in Germany? An exploratory analysis based on national hospital discharge data.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of health services around the world faced considerable disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. While this has been discussed for a number of conditions in the adult population, related patterns have been studied less for children. In light of the detrimental effects of the pandemic, particularly for children and young people under the age of 18, it is pivotal to explore this issue further. METHODS: Based on complete national hospital discharge data available via the German National Institute for the Reimbursement of Hospitals (InEK) data browser, we compare the top 30 diagnoses for which children were hospitalised in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. We analyse the development of monthly admissions between January 2019 and December 2022 for three tracers of variable time-sensitivity: acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), appendicitis/appendectomy and tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy. RESULTS: Compared to 2019, total admissions were approximately 20% lower in 2020 and 2021, and 13% lower in 2022. The composition of the most frequent principal diagnoses remained similar across years, although changes in rank were observed. Decreases were observed in 2020 for respiratory and gastrointestinal infections, with cases increasing again in 2021. The number of ALL admissions showed an upward trend and a periodicity prima vista unrelated to pandemic factors. Appendicitis admissions decreased by about 9% in 2020 and a further 8% in 2021 and 4% in 2022, while tonsillectomies/adenoidectomies decreased by more than 40% in 2020 and a further 32% in 2021 before increasing in 2022; for these tracers, monthly changes are in line with pandemic waves. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital care for critical and urgent conditions among patients under the age of 18 was largely upheld in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially at the expense of elective treatments. There is an alignment between observed variations in hospitalisations and pandemic mitigation measures, possibly also reflecting changes in demand. This study highlights the need for comprehensive, intersectoral data that would be necessary to better understand changing demand, unmet need/foregone care and shifts from inpatient to outpatient care, as well as their link to patient outcomes and health care efficiency.

Assessing capacities and resilience of health services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned from use of rapid key informant surveys.

This article is part of the Research Topic: 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict.' Problem: Many countries lacked rapid and nimble data systems to track health service capacities to respond to COVID-19. They struggled to assess and monitor rapidly evolving service disruptions, health workforce capacities, health products availability, community needs and perspectives, and mitigation responses to maintain essential health services. Method: Building on established methodologies, the World Health Organization developed a suite of methods and tools to support countries to rapidly fill data gaps and guide decision-making during COVID-19. The tools included: (1) a national "pulse" survey on service disruptions and bottlenecks; (2) a phone-based facility survey on frontline service capacities; and (3) a phone-based community survey on demand-side challenges and health needs. Use: Three national pulse surveys revealed persisting service disruptions throughout 2020-2021 (97 countries responded to all three rounds). Results guided mitigation strategies and operational plans at country level, and informed investments and delivery of essential supplies at global level. Facility and community surveys in 22 countries found similar disruptions and limited frontline service capacities at a more granular level. Findings informed key actions to improve service delivery and responsiveness from local to national levels. Lessons learned: The rapid key informant surveys provided a low-resource way to collect action-oriented health services data to inform response and recovery from local to global levels. The approach fostered country ownership, stronger data capacities, and integration into operational planning. The surveys are being evaluated to inform integration into country data systems to bolster routine health services monitoring and serve as health services alert functions for the future.

Perspective: Lessons from COVID-19 of countries in the European region in light of findings from the health system response monitor.

Introduction: Decision-makers initially had limited data to inform their policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The research community developed several online databases to track cases, deaths, and hospitalizations; however, a major deficiency was the lack of detailed information on how health systems were responding to the pandemic and how they would need to be transformed going forward. Approach: In an effort to fill this information gap, in March 2020, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, the WHO European Regional Office and the European Commission created the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) to collect and organise up-to-date information on how health systems, mainly in the WHO European Region, were responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: The HSRM analysis and broader Observatory work on COVID-19 shone light on a range of health system challenges and weaknesses and catalogued policy options countries put in place during the pandemic to address these. Countries prioritised policies on investing in public health, supporting the workforce, maintaining financial stability, and strengthening governance in their response to COVID-19. Outlook: COVID-19 is likely to continue to impact health systems for the foreseeable future; the ability to cope with this pressure, and other shocks, depends on having good information on what other countries have done so that health systems develop adequate policy options. In support of this, the country information on the COVID-19 HSRM will remain available as a repository to inform decision makers on options for actions and possible measures against COVID-19 and other public health emergencies. Building on its previous work on health systems resilience, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies will sustain its focus on analysing key issues related to the recovery from the pandemic and making health systems more resilient. This includes policy knowledge transfer between countries and systematic resilience testing, aiming at contributing to an improved understanding of health system response, recovery, and preparedness. Contribution to the literature in non-technical language: The COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) was the first database in the WHO European Region to collect and organise up-to-date information on how health systems were responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The HSRM provides a repository of policies which can be used to inform decision makers in health and other policy domains on options for action and possible measures against COVID-19 and other public health emergencies. This initiative proved particularly valuable, especially during the early phases of the pandemic, when there was limited information for countries to draw on as they formulated their own policy response to the pandemic. Our perspectives paper highlights some key challenges within health systems that the HSRM was able to identify during the pandemic and considers policy options countries put in place in response. Our research contributes to literature on emergency responses and recovery, health systems performance assessment, particularly health system resilience, and showcases the Observatory experience on how to design such a data collection tool, as well as how to leverage its findings to support cross-country learning.

Addressing backlogs and managing waiting lists during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic

In order to restore services to pre-pandemic levels and catch up on care, we need to understand and act on what we have learned from the pandemic, including investing in the health workforce, increasing funding for the health infrastructure of the future, and maintaining the innovative forms of service delivery that proved useful in reaching out to key groups affected by the pandemic. This brief is a valuable resource for policy-makers seeking to understand the extent of disruption to health services caused by COVID-19, the reasons behind this, and what different countries are doing in response. Its aim is to provide options to reduce service backlogs for those who are addressing this challenge in their national contexts.

Governing the public-private-partnerships of the future: learnings from the experiences in pandemic times

No-one is safe until everyone is safe. But what can be done when a country fails to take measures to control a pandemic virus? It poses a threat to its own people but also to its neighbours and beyond. Countries do pool sovereignty, working through supra-national structures, such as international agencies, or using processes set out in treaties, recognising the mutual benefits of the international rules-based system. Here we review the ways in which governments have, or have not worked together on other issues that pose a threat to global health and discuss the implications for pandemic responses.

The Acceptability of Task-Shifting from Doctors to Allied Health Professionals.

BACKGROUND: The shifting of medical tasks (MT) to Qualified Medical Practice Assistants (MPA) is an option that can be pursued to ensure adequate health care in Germany despite the increasing scarcity of physicians. The goal of this study was to determine the acceptability of medical task-shifting to MPA among the general population. METHODS: In a nationwide, representative telephone survey, 6105 persons aged 18 or older were asked whether they would be willing to receive care from a specially trained MPA at a physician's office. Their responses were tested for correlations with sociodemographic characteristics by means of bivariate (chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney U test) and multivariable statistics (logistic regression). RESULTS: Of the respondents, 67.2% expressed willingness to accept the shifting of MT to an MPA for the treatment of a minor illness, and 51.8% for a chronic illness. Rejection of task-shifting was associated with old age, residence in western Germany, and citizenship of a country other than Germany. For example, non-Germans rejected task-shifting more commonly than Germans, for both minor illnesses (odds ratio [OR] 2.96; 95% confidence interval [2.28; 3.85]) and chronic illnesses (OR 1.61; [1.24; 2.10]). CONCLUSION: Further studies are needed to investigate the motives for rejection of medical task-shifting to MPA in order to assess the likelihood of successful nationwide introduction of a uniform delegation model.

Patients' understanding of health information in Germany.

Background: Patient-physician communication and textual health information are central to health care. Yet, how well patients understand their physicians and written materials is under-studied. Objectives: Focusing on outpatient health care in Germany, the aim of this research was to assess patients' levels of understanding oral and written health information and to identify associations with socioeconomic variables. Methods: This analysis drew on a 2017 health survey (n=6,105 adults 18 years of age and above). Measures for the quality of patient-physician communication were derived from the Ask Me 3 program questions for consultations with general practitioners (GPs) and specialists (SPs), and for textual health information via a question on the comprehensibility of written materials. Correlations with socioeconomic variables were explored using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Over 90% of all respondents reported that they had understood the GP's and SP's explanations. A lack of understanding was most notably correlated with patients' self-reported very poor health (odds ratio [OR]: 5.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.23-12.10), current health problem (OR: 6.54, CI: 1.70-25.12) and older age (65 years and above, OR: 2.97, CI: 1.10-8.00). Fewer patients reported that they understood written materials well (86.7% for last visit at GP, 89.7% for last visit at SP). Difficulties in understanding written materials were strongly correlated with basic education (OR: 4.20, CI: 2.76-6.39) and older age (65 years and above, OR: 2.66, CI: 1.43-4.96). Conclusions: In order to increase patients' understanding of health information and reduce inequalities among patient subgroups, meeting the communication needs of patients of older age, low educational status and with poor health is essential.

Patients' perceptions of health system responsiveness in ambulatory care in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To identify overall levels of health system responsiveness and the associations with social determinants for ambulatory health care in Germany from a user perspective. METHODS: This analysis drew on a 2016 health survey sample of 6113 adults in Germany. Responsiveness was measured for general practitioners (GPs) and specialists (SPs) along the domains trust, dignity, confidentiality, autonomy and communication. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression techniques were applied. RESULTS: Over 90% of all patients assessed their last GP and SP visit as good regarding trust, dignity, autonomy and communication, but only half for confidentiality in the doctor office (GP visits: 50.3%; SP visits: 52.4%). For GP visits, patients' young age of 18-34 years showed most associations with poor assessment of the domains, for SP visits a current health problem as the reason for the last consultation. CONCLUSION: While overall responsiveness levels for ambulatory care are high, ratings of confidentiality are distressing. Particularly patients' young age and bad health are associated with a poor assessment of responsiveness. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Measures to improve doctor office infrastructure and to enhance responsiveness towards patients under the age of 35 years and those with health problems are vital to increase responsiveness.

[Sociodemographic and health-related determinants of health care utilisation and access to primary and specialist care: Results of a nationwide population survey in Germany (2006-2016)]. / Soziodemografische und gesundheitsbezogene Merkmale der Inanspruchnahme und des Zugangs zu haus- und fachärztlicher Versorgung ­ Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Bevölkerungsbefragung von 2006 bis 2016.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper is to identify systematic differences due to sociodemographic and health-related determinants in outpatient healthcare utilisation and access in Germany for the period from 2006 to 2016. The study focuses on frequent users and those reporting particularly long wait times for their physician appointments, and it contributes to assessing the level of health equity in Germany. METHODS: The investigation draws on nine population surveys conducted by the German National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (NASHIP), which interviewed 42,925 respondents aged 18 and above. "Frequent users" were operationalised as those respondents who reported more than ten consultations with outpatient general practitioners (GPs) and specialists (SPs) in the preceding twelve months. Respondents who experienced wait times of more than one month for their last doctor appointment were categorised as "very long wait times". Sociodemographic determinants included age, gender, educational and occupational status, population and region of place of residence, as well as type of health insurance of the respondents. Health-related factors were self-assessed health status and reason for last medical consultation. Statistical analyses were conducted using bivariate and multivariate techniques (logistic regression). RESULTS: Utilisation: Frequent users of GPs and SPs are predominantly respondents in poor health, retirees and younger persons (18 to 34 years of age). Furthermore, people with a lower educational background consult their GPs significantly more often than people with higher levels of education. Also, patients with statutory health insurance coverage visit GPs more frequently than those having private health insurance, whereas the opposite holds true for SP consultations. Access: Very long wait times for GP and SP appointments were most often experienced by respondents who consult GPs and SPs for preventive medical check-ups or health screenings, have statutory health insurance, live in eastern Germany and who are above 60 years of age. In addition, people with higher levels of education are significantly more likely to experience wait times for SP appointments of more than one month than people with a lower educational background. The proportion of frequent users as well as of those reporting very long wait times for SP appointments has increased in Germany over the period examined. CONCLUSION: This study reveals that a high frequency of GP and SP consultations is primarily associated with self-assessed poor health, indicating that prioritisation is based on clinical need. In order to ensure the same needs-based prioritisation in the access to outpatient healthcare, regulatory measures are required to decrease wait times of more than one month for SP appointments, with a special focus on people with statutory health insurance coverage, residents of eastern Germany and the elderly.