The role of the health sector in tackling climate change: A narrative review.

Climate change is one of the largest threats to population health and has already affected the ecosystem, food production, and health and wellbeing of populations all over the world. The healthcare sector is responsible for around 5 % of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and can play a key role in reducing global warming. This narrative review summarized the information on the role of healthcare systems in addressing climate change and strategies for reducing its negative impact to illustrate different types of actions that can support the ecological transformation of healthcare systems to help reaching sustainable development goals. A wide range of green interventions are shown to be effective to reduce the carbon footprint of healthcare and can have a meaningful impact if implemented systematically. However, these would not suffice unless accompanied by systemic mitigation strategies altering how healthcare is provided and consumed. Sustainable healthcare strategies such as reducing waste and low-value care will have direct benefits for the environment while improving economic and health outcomes. The healthcare sector has a unique opportunity to leverage its position and resources to provide a comprehensive strategy for fighting climate change and improving population health and the environment on which it depends.

Changing roles of health insurers in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: any lessons to learn from Bismarckian systems?

Bismarckian health systems are mainly governed by social health insurers, but their role, status, and power vary across countries and over time. We compare the role of health insurers in three distinct social health insurance systems in improving health systems' efficiency. In France, insurers work together as a single payer within a highly regulated context. Although this gives insurers substantial bargaining power, collective negotiations with providers are highly political and do not provide appropriate incentives for efficiency. Both Germany and the Netherlands have introduced competition among insurers to foster efficiency. However, the rationale of insurer competition in Germany is unclear because contracts are mostly concluded at a collective level and individual insurers have little power to influence health system efficiency. In the Netherlands, insurer competition is substantially more effective, but primarily focused on price and cost containment. In all three countries, the role of insurers has been transforming slowly to respond to common challenges of assuring care quality and continuity for an ageing population. To assure sustainability, they need to ensure that care providers cooperate with the same quality and efficiency objectives, but their capacity to do so has been limited by insufficient support to enforce public information on provider quality.

France: Health System Review.

This review of the French health system analyses recent developments in health organisation and governance, financing, healthcare provision, recent reforms and health system performance. Overall health status continues to improve in France, although geographic and socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy persist. The health system combines a social health insurance (SHI) model with an important role for tax-based revenues to finance healthcare. The health system provides universal coverage, with a broad benefits basket, but cost-sharing is required for all essential services. Private complementary insurance to cover these costs results in very low average out-of-pocket (OOP) payments, although there are concerns regarding solidarity, financial redistribution and efficiency in the health system. The macroeconomic context in the last couple of years in the country has been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, which resulted in subsequent increases of total health expenditure in France in 2020 (3.7%) and 2021 (9.8%). Healthcare provision continues to be highly fragmented in France, with a segmented approach to care organization and funding across primary, secondary and long-term care. Recent reforms aim to strengthen primary care by encouraging multidisciplinary group practices, while public health efforts over the last decade have focused on boosting prevention strategies and tackling lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking and obesity with limited success. Continued challenges include ensuring the sustainability of the health workforce, particularly to secure adequate numbers of health professionals in medically underserved areas, such as rural and less affluent communities, and improving working conditions, remuneration and career prospects, especially for nurses, to support retention. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought to light some structural weaknesses within the French health system, but it has also provided opportunities for improving its sustainability. There has been a notable shift in the will to give more room to decision-making at the local level, involving healthcare professionals, and to find new ways of funding healthcare providers to encourage care coordination and integration.

France: health system review

This review of the French health system analyses recent developments in health organization and governance, financing, healthcare provision, recent reforms and health system performance.Overall health status continues to improve in France, although geographic and socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy persist. The health system combines a social health insurance model with an important role fortax-based revenues to finance healthcare. The health system provides universal coverage, with a broad benefits basket, but cost-sharing is required for all essential services. Private complementary insurance to cover these costs results in very low average out-of-pocket payments, although there are concerns regarding solidarity, financial redistribution and efficiency in the health system. The macroeconomic context in the last couple of years in the country has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in subsequent increases of total health expenditure in France in 2020 (3.7%) and 2021 (9.8%).Healthcare provision continues to be highly fragmented in France, with a segmented approach to care organization and funding across primary, secondary and long-term care. Recent reforms aim to strengthen primarycare by encouraging multidisciplinary group practices, while public health efforts over the last decade have focused on boosting prevention strategies and tackling lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking and obesity with limited success. Continued challenges include ensuring the sustainability of the health workforce, particularly to secure adequate numbers of health professionals in medically underserved areas, such as rural and less affluent communities, and improving working conditions, remuneration and career prospects, especially for nurses, to support retention. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light some structural weaknesses within the French health system, but it has also provided opportunities for improving its sustainability. There has been a notable shift in the will to give more room to decision-making at the local level, involving healthcare professionals, and to find new ways of funding healthcare providers to encourage care coordination and integration.

Factors for Consideration When Setting Prices for Private Healthcare Providers Operating in Public Systems: A Comparison of France and Japan.

Background: Most publicly-funded health systems purchase healthcare from private providers, but the optimal purchasing arrangements between public purchasers and private healthcare providers are yet to be determined. Objective: This study compares the healthcare purchasing arrangements made with private providers in 2 social health insurance (SHI)-based systems to identify factors that influence the prices paid for private healthcare service provision. Results: France and Japan use different approaches to determine the payment arrangements with public and private providers. The presence of for-profit healthcare providers in the French health system explains the different payment rates for public and private healthcare providers in that country. In both France and Japan, in addition to payment rates, several policy tools are used to assure the provision of public good services and the availability of necessary healthcare for all, which public providers are required to deliver but private providers can choose to deliver. Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of considering the profit-making status of the private healthcare providers operating in the healthcare market, and clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the public, for-profit and not-for-profit providers when determining healthcare purchasing arrangements. Regulatory policy instruments, used alongside payment rates, are essential to influence efficiency, equity, and quality in mixed (public-private) health systems.

Why the US spends more treating high-need high-cost patients: a comparative study of pricing and utilization of care in six high-income countries.

One of the most pressing challenges facing most health care systems is rising costs. As the population ages and the demand for health care services grows, there is a growing need to understand the drivers of these costs across systems. This paper attempts to address this gap by examining utilization and spending of the course of a year for two specific high-need high-cost patient types: a frail older person with a hip fracture and an older person with congestive heart failure and diabetes. Data on utilization and expenditure is collected across five health care settings (hospital, post-acute rehabilitation, primary care, outpatient specialty and drugs), in six countries (Canada (Ontario), France, Germany, Spain (Aragon), Sweden and the United States (fee for service Medicare) and used to construct treatment episode Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) that compare prices using baskets of goods from the different care settings. The treatment episode PPPs suggest other countries have more similar volumes of care to the US as compared to other standardization approaches, suggesting that US prices account for more of the differential in US health care expenditures. The US also differs with regards to the share of expenditures across care settings, with post-acute rehab and outpatient speciality expenditures accounting for a larger share of the total relative to comparators.

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.

Impact of Competition Versus Centralisation of Hospital Care on Process Quality: A Multilevel Analysis of Breast Cancer Surgery in France.

BACKGROUND: The implications of competition among hospitals on care quality have been the subject of considerable debate. On one hand, economic theory suggests that when prices are regulated, quality will be increased in competitive markets. On the other hand, hospital mergers have been justified by the need to exploit cost advantages, and by evidence that hospital volume and care quality are related. METHODS: Based on patient-level data from two years (2005 and 2012) we track changes in market competition and treatment patterns in breast cancer surgery. We focus on technology adoption as a proxy of process quality and examine the likelihood of offering two innovative surgical procedures: immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), after mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). We use an index of competition based on a multinomial logit model of hospital choice which is not subject to endogeneity bias, and estimate its impact on the propensity to receive IBR and SLNB by means of multilevel models taking into account both observable patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: The likelihood of receiving these procedures is significantly higher in hospitals located in more competitive markets. Yet, hospital volume remains a significant indicator of quality, therefore benefits of competition appear to be sensitive to the estimates of the impact of volume on care process. In France, the centralisation policy, with minimum activity thresholds, have contributed to improving breast cancer treatment between 2005 and 2012. CONCLUSION: Finding the right balance between costs and benefits of market competition versus concentration of hospital care supply is complex. We find that close to monopolistic markets do not encourage innovation and quality in cancer treatment, but highly competitive markets where many hospitals have very low activity volumes are also problematic because hospital quality is positively linked to patient volume.

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.

France's response to the Covid-19 pandemic: between a rock and a hard place.

France is one of the European countries hardest hit by the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic brought into light structural weaknesses of the health system, including its governance and decision-making process, but also provoked changes that helped to improve its resilience. We analyse the French experience of Covid-19 in 2020 by critically reviewing major policy measures implemented during the first two waves of the pandemic. France has struggled to find the right balance between the rock of economic and social damage caused by containment measures and the hard alternative of a rapidly spreading pandemic. The response to the first wave, including a full lock-down, was an emergency response that revealed the low level of preparedness for pandemics and the overly hospital-centred provision of health care in France. During the second wave, this response evolved into a more level strategy trying to reconcile health needs in a broader perspective integrating socio-economic considerations, but without fully managing to put in place an effective health strategy. We conclude that to achieve the right balance, France will have to strengthen health system capacity and improve the cooperation between actors at central and local levels with greater participatory decision-making that takes into account local-level realities and the diversity of needs.

Tackling the COVID-19 pandemic: Initial responses in 2020 in selected social health insurance countries in Europe☆.

Countries with social health insurance (SHI) systems display some common defining characteristics - pluralism of actors and strong medical associations - that, in dealing with crisis times, may allow for common learnings. This paper analyses health system responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in eight countries representative of SHI systems in Europe (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Switzerland). Data collection and analysis builds on the methodology and content in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) up to November 2020. We find that SHI funds were, in general, neither foreseen as major stakeholders in crisis management, nor were they represented in crisis management teams. Further, responsibilities in some countries shifted from SHI funds to federal governments. The overall organisation and governance of SHI systems shaped how countries responded to the challenges of the pandemic. For instance, coordinated ambulatory care often helped avoid overburdening hospitals. Decentralisation among local authorities may however represent challenges with the coordination of policies, i.e. coordination costs. At the same time, bottom-up self-organisation of ambulatory care providers is supported by decentralised structures. Providers also increasingly used teleconsultations, which may remain part of standard practice. It is recommended to involve SHI funds actively in crisis management and in preparing for future crisis to increase health system resilience.

A methodology for identifying high-need, high-cost patient personas for international comparisons.

OBJECTIVE: To establish a methodological approach to compare two high-need, high-cost (HNHC) patient personas internationally. DATA SOURCES: Linked individual-level administrative data from the inpatient and outpatient sectors compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. STUDY DESIGN: We outline a methodological approach to identify HNHC patient types for international comparisons that reflect complex, priority populations defined by the National Academy of Medicine. We define two patient profiles using accessible patient-level datasets linked across different domains of care-hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post-acute rehabilitative care, long-term care, home-health care, and outpatient drugs. The personas include a frail older adult with a hip fracture with subsequent hip replacement and an older person with complex multimorbidity, including heart failure and diabetes. We demonstrate their comparability by examining the characteristics and clinical diagnoses captured across countries. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data collected by ICCONIC partners. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Across 11 countries, the identification of HNHC patient personas was feasible to examine variations in healthcare utilization, spending, and patient outcomes. The ability of countries to examine linked, individual-level data varied, with the Netherlands, Canada, and Germany able to comprehensively examine care across all seven domains, whereas other countries such as England, Switzerland, and New Zealand were more limited. All countries were able to identify a hip fracture persona and a heart failure persona. Patient characteristics were reassuringly similar across countries. CONCLUSION: Although there are cross-country differences in the availability and structure of data sources, countries had the ability to effectively identify comparable HNHC personas for international study. This work serves as the methodological paper for six accompanying papers examining differences in spending, utilization, and outcomes for these personas across countries.

International comparison of health spending and utilization among people with complex multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore cross-country differences in spending and utilization across different domains of care for a multimorbid persona with heart failure and diabetes. DATA SOURCES: We used individual-level administrative claims or registry data from inpatient and outpatient health care sectors compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States (US). DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data collected by ICCONIC partners. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed age-sex standardized utilization and spending of an older person (65-90 years) hospitalized with a heart failure exacerbation and a secondary diagnosis of diabetes across five domains of care: hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post-acute rehabilitative care, and outpatient drugs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Sample sizes ranged from n = 1270 in Spain to n = 21,803 in the United States. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) ranged from 76.2 (5.6) in the Netherlands to 80.3 (6.8) in Sweden. We observed substantial variation in spending and utilization across care settings. On average, England spent $10,956 per person in hospital care while the United States spent $30,877. The United States had a shorter length of stay over the year (18.9 days) compared to France (32.9) and Germany (33.4). The United States spent more days in facility-based rehabilitative care than other countries. Australia spent $421 per person in primary care, while Spain (Aragon) spent $1557. The United States and Canada had proportionately more visits to specialist providers than primary care providers. Across almost all sectors, the United States spent more than other countries, suggesting higher prices per unit. CONCLUSION: Across 11 countries, there is substantial variation in health care spending and utilization for a complex multimorbid persona with heart failure and diabetes. Drivers of spending vary across countries, with the United States being the most expensive country due to high prices and higher use of facility-based rehabilitative care.

Within and across country variations in treatment of patients with heart failure and diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare within-country variation of health care utilization and spending of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and diabetes across countries. DATA SOURCES: Patient-level linked data sources compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care across nine countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Patients were identified in routine hospital data with a primary diagnosis of CHF and a secondary diagnosis of diabetes in 2015/2016. STUDY DESIGN: We calculated the care consumption of patients after a hospital admission over a year across the care pathway-ranging from primary care to home health nursing care. To compare the distribution of care consumption in each country, we use Gini coefficients, Lorenz curves, and female-male ratios for eight utilization and spending measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In all countries, rehabilitation and home nursing care were highly concentrated in the top decile of patients, while the number of drug prescriptions were more uniformly distributed. On average, the Gini coefficient for drug consumption is about 0.30 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.36), while it is, 0.50 (0.45-0.56) for primary care visits, and more than 0.75 (0.81-0.92) for rehabilitation use and nurse visits at home (0.78; 0.62-0.9). Variations in spending were more pronounced than in utilization. Compared to men, women spend more days at initial hospital admission (+5%, 1.01-1.06), have a higher number of prescriptions (+7%, 1.05-1.09), and substantially more rehabilitation and home care (+20% to 35%, 0.79-1.6, 0.99-1.64), but have fewer visits to specialists (-10%; 0.84-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Distribution of health care consumption in different settings varies within countries, but there are also some common treatment patterns across all countries. Clinicians and policy makers need to look into these differences in care utilization by sex and care setting to determine whether they are justified or indicate suboptimal care.

An international comparison of long-term care trajectories and spending following hip fracture.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to compare the relative use of different postacute care settings in different countries and to compare three important outcomes as follows: total expenditure, total days of care in different care settings, and overall longevity over a 1-year period following a hip fracture. DATA SOURCES: We used administrative data from hospitals, institutional and home-based long-term care (LTC), physician visits, and medications compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) from five countries as follows: Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Data were extracted from existing administrative data systems in each participating country. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of all individuals admitted to acute care for hip fracture. Descriptive comparisons were used to examine aggregate institutional and home-based postacute care. Care trajectories were created to track sequential care settings after acute-care discharge through institutional and community-based care in three countries where detailed information allowed. Comparisons in patient characteristics, utilization, and costs were made across these trajectories and countries. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Across five countries with complete LTC data, we found notable variations with Germany having the highest days of home-based services with relatively low costs, while Sweden incurred the highest overall expenditures. Comparisons of trajectories found that France had the highest use of inpatient rehabilitation. Germany was most likely to discharge hip fracture patients to home. Over 365 days, France averaged the highest number of days in institution with 104, Canada followed at 94, and Germany had just 87 days of institutional care on average. CONCLUSION: In this comparison of LTC services following a hip fracture, we found international differences in total use of institutional and noninstitutional care, longevity, and total expenditures. There exist opportunities to organize postacute care differently to maximize independence and mitigate costs.

Differences in health outcomes for high-need high-cost patients across high-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores variations in outcomes of care for two types of patient personas-an older frail person recovering from a hip fracture and a multimorbid older patient with congestive heart failure (CHF) and diabetes. DATA SOURCES: We used individual-level patient data from 11 health systems. STUDY DESIGN: We compared inpatient mortality, mortality, and readmission rates at 30, 90, and 365 days. For the hip fracture persona, we also calculated time to surgery. Outcomes were standardized by age and sex. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data was compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes and Needs in Care across 11 countries for the years 2016-2017 (or nearest): Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The hip sample across ranged from 1859 patients in Aragon, Spain, to 42,849 in France. Mean age ranged from 81.2 in Switzerland to 84.7 in Australia, and the majority of hip patients across countries were female. The congestive heart failure (CHF) sample ranged from 742 patients in England to 21,803 in the United States. Mean age ranged from 77.2 in the United States to 80.3 in Sweden, and the majority of CHF patients were males. Average in-hospital mortality across countries was 4.1%. for the hip persona and 6.3% for the CHF persona. At the year mark, the mean mortality across all countries was 25.3% for the hip persona and 32.7% for CHF persona. Across both patient types, England reported the highest mortality at 1 year followed by the United States. Readmission rates for all periods were higher for the CHF persona than the hip persona. At 30 days, the average readmission rate for the hip persona was 13.8% and 27.6% for the CHF persona. CONCLUSION: Across 11 countries, there are meaningful differences in health system outcomes for two types of patients.

Differences in health care spending and utilization among older frail adults in high-income countries: ICCONIC hip fracture persona.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores differences in spending and utilization of health care services for an older person with frailty before and after a hip fracture. DATA SOURCES: We used individual-level patient data from five care settings. STUDY DESIGN: We compared utilization and spending of an older person aged older than 65 years for 365 days before and after a hip fracture across 11 countries and five domains of care as follows: acute hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post-acute rehabilitative care, and outpatient drugs. Utilization and spending were age and sex standardized.. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The data were compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries as follows: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The sample ranged from 1859 patients in Spain to 42,849 in France. Mean age ranged from 81.2 in Switzerland to 84.7 in Australia. The majority of patients across countries were female. Relative to other countries, the United States had the lowest inpatient length of stay (11.3), but the highest number of days were spent in post-acute care rehab (100.7) and, on average, had more visits to specialist providers (6.8 per year) than primary care providers (4.0 per year). Across almost all sectors, the United States spent more per person than other countries per unit ($13,622 per hospitalization, $233 per primary care visit, $386 per MD specialist visit). Patients also had high expenditures in the year prior to the hip fracture, mostly concentrated in the inpatient setting. CONCLUSION: Across 11 high-income countries, there is substantial variation in health care spending and utilization for an older person with frailty, both before and after a hip fracture. The United States is the most expensive country due to high prices and above average utilization of post-acute rehab care.