Governing health service purchasing agencies: Comparative study of national purchasing agencies in 10 countries in eastern Europe and central Asia.

This study discusses findings from comparative case studies of the governance of health services purchasing agencies in 10 eastern European and central Asian countries established over the past 30 years, and the relationship between governance attributes, institutional development, and the progress made in strategic purchasing. The feasibility and effectiveness of implementing international recommendations from the health sector and wider public sector governance literature and practice are also discussed. The study finds that only those countries that have transitioned from middle to high-income status during the study period have been successful in comprehensively and consistently implementing internationally recommended practices. Moreover, these countries have made varying progress in developing capable purchasers with technical and operational independence, as well as advancing strategic purchasing. However, the current middle-income countries (MICs) in the study have implemented only certain elements of recommended governance practices, often superficially. Notably, the study reveals that some international recommendations, particularly those related to higher degrees of purchaser autonomy and the associated governance structures observed in western European social health insurance funds, have proven challenging to implement effectively or sustain in the MICs. None of the MICs succeeded in strategic purchasing beyond a limited agenda or scale, and even then, only implementing and sustaining them during favorable conditions. Difficulties in maintaining these achievements can be attributed, in part, to governance deficiencies. However, setbacks are commonly linked to periods of political and economic instability, which in turn lead to fluctuations in policy priorities, institutional instability, and inadequacies in health budgets. The study findings point to some actions related to civil society and stakeholder engagement, accountability frameworks, and digitalization in MICs that can facilitate continuity in health reforms and the functioning of purchasing institutions despite these challenges. The findings of the study provide important lessons for countries designing or newly implementing health purchasing agencies and for countries reviewing the performance and governance of their health purchasing agencies with a view to developing or strengthening strategic purchasing.

30 years of primary health care reforms in Estonia: The role of financial incentives to achieve a multidisciplinary primary health care system.

Estonia has a legacy of hospital-focused service provision, but since the 1990s, has introduced a series of reforms to strengthen primary health care (PHC). The recent PHC reforms have placed an increasing focus on multidisciplinary care, involving home nurses, midwives, and physiotherapists, and emphasize PHC centres over single physician practices. These incremental reforms, without a supporting legal basis nor explicitly defined timelines and targets, nonetheless demonstrated the ability of financial incentives to drive change. EU structural funds in particular provided essential funding for infrastructure investments in PHC. Yet not all stakeholders supported these initiatives, largely due to the uncertain sustainability of funding. The EHIF also adjusted contract and payment terms to support PHC reforms, with some concessions to PHC providers operating as single practitioners. Despite substantial progress over the last three decades to shift the focus to PHC, there are some important bottlenecks that hinder the progress. These include PHC providers' hesitance to give up their freedom as single practitioners, low interest from specialists to start working at the PHC level, and a lack of financial incentives and adequate funding for a broader scope of PHC services. This looks to become more challenging in the future, as nearly half of family physicians are 60 years old or older. The development of the new PHC strategy in 2023 is very timely to comprehensively address these bottlenecks and to set the vision for the future of PHC in Estonia.

Estonia: health system summary, 2022

This Health system summary is based on the Estonia: Health System Review published in 2018 in the Health Systems in Transition (HiT) series, and is significantly updated, including data, policy developments and relevant reforms as highlighted by the Health Systems and Policies Monitor (HSPM) (www.hspm.org). For this edition, key data have been updated to those available in July 2022 unless otherwise stated. Health system summaries use a concise format to communicate central features of country health systems and analyse available evidence on the organization, financing and delivery of health care. They also provide insights into key reforms and the varied challenges testing the performance of the health system.

Can people afford to pay for health care? New evidence on financial protection in Estonia 2023

This review is part of a series of country-based studies generating new evidence on financial protection – affordable access to health care – in health systems in Europe and central Asia. Financial protection is central to universal health coverage and a core dimension of health system performance assessment. Financial protection improved in Estonia between 2015 and 2020, reflecting positive changes in coverage policy and other factors. However, catastrophic health spending continues to be higher in Estonia than in many European Union countries – mainly driven by out-of-pocket payments for outpatient medicines and dental care – and is heavily concentrated among households with low incomes. Levels of unmet need for health care are also well above average for the WHO European Region, reflecting long waiting times for specialist care. Gaps in all three dimensions of health coverage undermine financial protection in Estonia and systematically affect households with low incomes. Linking entitlement to payment of contributions leaves 10% of working-age people without coverage. The benefits package – while quite broad – provides limited coverage of adult dental care. The Government has tried to protect people from co-payments for outpatient prescribed medicines and dental care but these efforts have not been sufficient for people with lower incomes. To improve financial protection, Estonia can change the basis for entitlement to residence; increase and fine-tune benefits to better target those in most need; reduce out-of-pocket payments in long term health care; and increase protection from all co-payments, especially for households with low incomes.

Estonia: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Estonian health system illustrates recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. In general, Estonia spends less per capita on health than the European Union average, although public expenditure has been growing steadily, with an increasing role of government budget transfers towards the social health insurance model. Despite these efforts, more than a fifth of current health expenditure comes from out-of-pocket payments, creating pressure to develop new and strengthen existing financial protection instruments. Life expectancy in Estonia has increased rapidly over the past decade, but not fast enough to meet the targets set in strategic documents. The first years of the COVID-19 pandemic were marked by a decline in life expectancy and high excess mortality, which set back progress. Despite this, Estonia's gains in population health were more pronounced in 2022. Overall, health inequalities between socioeconomic groups remain high, prompting policymakers to take steps to increase equity in access to care. The outstanding challenges for the Estonian health system include: addressing the shortage of primary and mental health experts, especially given the growing burden of chronic conditions and other needs of the ageing population; minimizing stark socioeconomic inequalities in health outcomes; renewing the outdated public health framework; and further improving integration and coordination of care and clinical decision-making.

Exploring variation of coverage and access to dental care for adults in 11 European countries: a vignette approach.

BACKGROUND: Oral health, coupled with rising awareness on the impact that limited dental care coverage has on oral health and general health and well-being, has received increased attention over the past few years. The purpose of the study was to compare the statutory coverage and access to dental care for adult services in 11 European countries using a vignette approach. METHODS: We used three patient vignettes to highlight the differences of the dimensions of coverage and access to dental care (coverage, cost-sharing and accessibility). The three vignettes describe typical care pathways for patients with the most common oral health conditions (caries, periodontal disease, edentulism). The vignettes were completed by health services researchers knowledgeable on dental care, dentists, or teams consisting of a health systems expert working together with dental specialists. RESULTS: Completed vignettes were received from 11 countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Republic of Ireland (Ireland), Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden. While emergency dental care, tooth extraction and restorative care for acute pain due to carious lesions are covered in most responding countries, root canal treatment, periodontal care and prosthetic restoration often require cost-sharing or are entirely excluded from the benefit basket. Regular dental visits are also limited to one visit per year in many countries. Beyond financial barriers due to out-of-pocket payments, patients may experience very different physical barriers to accessing dental care. The limited availability of contracted dentists (especially in rural areas) and the unequal distribution and lack of specialised dentists are major access barriers to public dental care. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results, statutory coverage of dental care varies across European countries, while access barriers are largely similar. Many dental services require substantial cost-sharing in most countries, leading to high out-of-pocket spending. Socioeconomic status is thus a main determinant for access to dental care, but other factors such as geography, age and comorbidities can also inhibit access and affect outcomes. Moreover, coverage in most oral health systems is targeted at treatment and less at preventative oral health care.

Lessons learned from the Baltic countries' response to the first wave of COVID-19.

The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania shared a similar response to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the information available on the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor platform, this article analyzed measures taken to prevent transmission, ensure capacity, provide essential services, finance the health system, and coordinate their governance approaches. All three countries used a highly centralized approach and implemented restrictive measures relatively early, with a state of emergency declared with fewer than 30 reported cases in each country. Due to initially low COVID-19 incidence, the countries built up their capacities for testing, contact tracing, and infrastructure, without a major stress test to the health system throughout the spring and summer of 2020, yet issues with accessing routine health care services had already started manifesting themselves. The countries in the Baltic region entered the pandemic with a precarious starting point, particularly due to smaller operational budgets and health workforce shortages, which may have contributed to their escalated response aiming to prevent transmission during the first wave. Subsequent waves, however, were much more damaging. This article focuses on early responses to the pandemic in the Baltic states highlighting measures taken to prevent virus transmission in the face of major uncertainties.

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.

How resilient is health financing policy in Europe to economic shocks? Evidence from the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2008 global financial crisis.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an economic shock just ten years after the shock of the 2008 global financial crisis. Economic shocks are a challenge for health systems because they reduce government revenue at the same time as they increase the need for publicly financed health care. This article explores the resilience of health financing policy to economic shocks by reviewing policy responses to the financial crisis and COVID-19 in Europe. It finds that some health systems were weakened by responses to the 2008 crisis. Responses to the pandemic show evidence of lessons learnt from the earlier crisis but also reveal weaknesses in health financing policy that limit national preparedness to face economic shocks, particularly in countries with social health insurance schemes. These weaknesses highlight where permanent changes are needed to strengthen resilience in future: countries will have to find ways to reduce cyclicality in coverage policy and revenue-raising; increase the priority given to health in allocating public spending; and ensure that resources are used to meet equity and efficiency goals. Although many health systems are likely to face budgetary pressure in the years ahead, the experience of the 2008 crisis shows that austerity is not an option because it undermines resilience and progress towards universal health coverage.

[Can people afford to pay for health care? New evidence on financial protection in Georgia]

This review is part of a series of country-based studies generating new evidence on financial protection in European health systems. Financial protection is central to universal health coverage and a core dimension of health system performance. Georgia has a relatively high incidence of impoverishing and catastrophic health spending compared to other countries in Europe. Catastrophic spending is driven mainly by out-of-pocket payments for outpatient medicines, but also for inpatient and outpatient care. It is heavily concentrated among the poorest households. Although reforms introduced since 2013 have improved access to health care and reduced the health system’s reliance on out-of-pocket payments, public spending on health remains low and gaps in coverage persist. To strengthen financial protection, increased public investment in health – especially in primary health care – is necessary but not enough. The government should also address gaps in coverage by prioritizing better protection for poor households and people with chronic conditions; introduce stronger regulation of service volumes and prices (including medicine prices) to ensure resources are used efficiently; and improve the quality of primary health care.

The 2017 reform to improve financial sustainability of national health insurance in Estonia: Analysis and first lessons on broadening the revenue base.

In 2017, the Estonian government addressed the longstanding challenge of financial sustainability of the health system by expanding its revenue base. As a relatively low-spending country on health, Estonia relies predominantly on payroll contributions from the working population, which exposes the system to economic shocks and population ageing. In an effort to reduce these vulnerabilities, Estonia will gradually introduce a government transfer on behalf of pensioners, although long-term sustainability of the health system could still prove challenging as the overall health spending as a percentage of GDP is not expected to substantially increase. Estonia has rolled out the reform according to plan, but it has led to debate about the need to achieve universal population coverage (currently at about 95%). Moreover, the Estonian experience also holds important lessons for other countries looking to reform their health system. For example, policymakers should recognize that reforms require extensive preparation using consistent messaging over a long period of time, also to prevent prioritising short term and popular fixes over structural reforms. Additionally, collaboration between the health and financial ministries throughout the reform increases the buy-in for the reform and likelihood of adoption. Furthermore, health professionals play a significant role in advocacy, and seeking support from this group can smooth the path towards health system reform.

Kas inimesed saavad endale tervishoiu eest tasumist lubada?: uued tõendid finantskaitse kohta Eestis

Tervishoiule tehtavate kulutuste katastroofiline tase on Eestis kõrgem kuipaljudes teistes ELi riikides, ent siiski madalam kui Lätis ja Leedus. 2015.aastal tasus 7,4% Eesti leibkondadest katastroofiliselt kõrget omaosalust.Pisut üle 5% olid pärast omaosaluse tasumist vaesunud, veelgi enamvaesunud või vaesumisohus.Puudujäägid tervishoiuteenustega kaetuses ei vii mitte üksnes leibkondaderahaliste raskusteni teenuste kasutamisel, vaid tekitavad juba ka takistusiteenuste kättesaadavuses. Kasvav rahuldamata vajadus teenustekättesaadavuses ning üha suurenev sissetulekutega seotud ebavõrdsus sellesosas, on olulised probleemid Eesti jaoks. Sissetulekutega seotud ebavõrdsusrahuldamata vajaduse osas on eriti oluline hambaravis ja retseptiravimiteosas. Rahuldamata nõudlusega tegelemine ja samal ajal finantskaitseparandamine nõuab täiendavaid avaliku sektori vahendeid tervisesüsteemi.Planeeritud avaliku sektori kulutuste suurendamine tervishoius peakskeskenduma omaosalussüsteemi keerukuse vähendamisele ja vaesemateleibkondade ning regulaarselt tervishoiuteenuseid kasutavate inimesteolukorra parandamisele.

Estonia: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Estonian health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. In 2017, the Estonian government took the historic step of expanding the revenue base of the health system, which has been a longstanding challenge. However, in terms of percentage of GDP it remains a small increase and long-term financial sustainability could still pose a problem. That said, if these additional funds are invested wisely, they could play a positive role in further improving the health system. Indeed, although Estonia has made remarkable progress on many health indicators (e.g. the strongest gains in life expectancy of all EU countries, strongly falling amenable mortality rates), there are opportunities for improvements. They include overcoming the large health disparities between socioeconomic groups, improving population coverage, developing a comprehensive plan to tackle workforce shortages, better managing the growing number of people with (multiple) noncommunicable diseases and further reaping the benefits of the e-health system, especially for care integration and clinical decision-making. Also in terms of quality, large strides have been made but the picture is mixed. Avoidable hospital admissions are among the lowest in Europe for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), about average for congestive heart failure and diabetes, but among the worst for hypertension. Moreover, the 30-day fatality rates for acute myocardial infarction and stroke are among the worst in the EU. These outcomes suggest substantial room to further improve service quality and care coordination. The new NHP, which is currently being revised will be play a crucial role in the success of future reform efforts.

The role of the 2011 patients' rights in cross-border health care directive in shaping seven national health systems: Looking beyond patient mobility.

Reports on the implementation of the Directive on the application of Patients' Rights in Cross-border Healthcare indicate that it had little impact on the numbers of patients seeking care abroad. We set out to explore the effects of this directive on health systems in seven EU Member States. Key informants in Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Malta, Poland and The Netherlands filled out a structured questionnaire. Findings indicate that the impact of the directive varied between countries and was smaller in countries where a large degree of adaptation had already taken place in response to the European Court of Justice Rulings. The main reforms reported include a heightened emphasis on patient rights and the adoption of explicit benefits packages and tariffs. Countries may be facing increased pressure to treat patients within a medically justifiable time limit. The implementation of professional liability insurance, in countries where this did not previously exist, may also bring benefits for patients. Lowering of reimbursement tariffs to dissuade patients from seeking treatment abroad has been reported in Poland. The issue of discrimination against non-contracted domestic private providers in Estonia, Finland, Malta and The Netherlands remains largely unresolved. We conclude that evidence showing that patients using domestic health systems have actually benefitted from the directive remains scarce and further monitoring over a longer period of time is recommended.

Eesti: tervisesüsteemi ülevaade

Eesti tervisesüsteemi analüüs käsitleb viimast arengut tervisesüsteemi korralduses,juhtimises ja rahastamises, tervishoiuteenuste osutamises, tervisesüsteemireformides ja tulemuslikkuses. Eesti valitsus astus 2017. aastal ajaloolisesammu ja laiendas tervisesüsteemi tulubaasi, mis on pikka aega olnudprobleem. Lisanduv raha on protsendina SKPst siiski väike ning pikaajalisestabiilsuse saavutamine võib endiselt jääda probleemiks. Kui lisaraha investeeritaksetargalt, võib see tervisesüsteemi täiustamisele positiivselt mõjuda.Ehkki Eestis on paljud tervisenäitajad oluliselt paranenud (nt oodatava elueasuurim pikenemine kõigist ELi riikidest, välditava suremuse oluline vähenemine),on nii mõndagi veel saavutada. Näiteks tuleks ületada suured erinevusedsotsiaal-majanduslike rühmade tervises, parandada elanikkonna kindlustuskatet,koostada põhjalik kava tööjõupuuduse lahendamiseks, pareminitegeleda kasvava hulga inimestega, kes põevad (mitut) mittenakkushaigust,ning paremini ära kasutada e-tervise süsteemi, eriti arstiabi integreerimiseksja kliiniliste otsuste tegemiseks. Kvaliteedi osas on tehtud suuri edusamme,kuid üldpilt on jätkuvalt ebaühtlane. Välditavate hospitaliseerimiste arv onüks Euroopa madalamaid astma ja kroonilise obstruktiivse kopsuhaigusepuhul, keskmine südamepuudulikkuse ja diabeedi puhul, kuid üks suuremaidkõrgvererõhktõve puhul. Lisaks on südameinfarkti ja insuldi 30-päevasesuremuse näitaja Eestis üks Euroopa halvimaid. Need tulemid viitavad sellele,et teenuste kvaliteedi ja ravi koordineerimise parandamiseks on veel paljuteha. Uuel rahvastiku tervise arengukaval, mis on praegu läbivaatamisel, ontulevaste reformide edukuses otsustav roll.

Estonia: health system review

This analysis of the Estonian health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. In 2017, the Estonian government took the historic step of expanding the revenue base of the health system,which has been a longstanding challenge. However, in terms of percentage of GDP it remains a small increase and long-term financial sustainability could still pose a problem. That said, if these additional funds are invested wisely, they could play a positive role in further improving the health system. Indeed, although Estonia has made remarkable progress on many health indicators (e.g. the strongest gains in life expectancy of all EU countries, strongly falling amenable mortality rates), there are opportunities for improvements. They include overcoming the large health disparities between socioeconomicgroups, improving population coverage, developing a comprehensive plan to tackle workforce shortages, better managing the growing number of people with (multiple) noncommunicable diseases and further reaping the benefits of the e-health system, especially for care integration and clinical decision-making. Also in terms of quality, large strides have been made but the picture is mixed. Avoidable hospital admissions are among the lowest in Europe for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), about average for congestive heart failure and diabetes, but among the worst for hypertension. Moreover, the 30-day fatality rates for acute myocardial infarction and stroke are among the worst in the EU. These outcomes suggest substantial room to further improve service quality and care coordination. The new NHP, which is currently being revised, will play a crucial role in the success of future reform efforts.

Can people afford to pay for health care? New evidence on financial protection in Estonia

The incidence of catastrophic spending on health is higher in Estonia than in many European Union countries, but lower than in Latvia and Lithuania. Catastrophic spending, primarily due to medicines, affects the poorest households the most. Estonia’s relatively high incidence of catastrophic spending on health partly reflects a level of public spending on health that is well below the European Union average and slightly lower than Estonia can afford. It also reflects substantial gaps in all three dimensions of health coverage: population coverage, service coverage and user charges. Gaps in coverage not only lead to financial hardship but also create barriers to access. Growing unmet need – and rising inequalities in unmet need – are significant problems in Estonia. Addressing high levels of unmet need and, at the same time, improving financial protection will require additional public investment in the health system. It will also require attention to the design of coverage policy. This review is part of a series of country-based studies generating new evidence on financial protection in European health systems.