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.

What have European countries done to prevent the spread of COVID-19? Lessons from the COVID-19 Health system response monitor.

Although some European countries imposed measures that successfully slowed the transmission of Covid-19 during the first year of the pandemic, others struggled, either because they acted slowly or implemented measures ineffectively. In this paper we consider the European experience with public health measures designed to prevent transmission of COVID-19. Based on literature and country responses described in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor from March 2020 to December 2020, we consider some critical aspects of public health policy responses. These include the importance of public health capacity that can scale up surveillance and outbreak control, including effective testing and contract tracing, of clear messaging based on an understanding of human behaviour, policies that address the undesirable consequences of necessary measures, such as support for those isolating or unable to earn, and the ability to implement at pace and scale a major vaccine rollout. We conclude that for countries to be successful at preventing COVID-19 transmission, there is a need for a clear strategy with explicit goals and a whole systems approach to implementation.

Early health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Mediterranean countries: A tale of successes and challenges.

This paper conducts a comparative review of the (curative) health systems' response taken by Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Italy, Malta, Portugal, and Spain during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, these Mediterranean countries shared similarities in terms of health system resources, which were low compared to the EU/OECD average. We distill key policy insights regarding the governance tools adopted to manage the pandemic, the means to secure sufficient physical infrastructure and workforce capacity and some financing and coverage aspects. We performed a qualitative analysis of the evidence reported to the 'Health System Response Monitor' platform of the European Observatory by country experts. We found that governance in the early stages of the pandemic was undertaken centrally in all the Mediterranean countries, even in Italy and Spain where regional authorities usually have autonomy over health matters. Stretched public resources prompted countries to deploy "flexible" intensive care unit capacity and health workforce resources as agile solutions. The private sector was also utilized to expand resources and health workforce capacity, through special public-private partnerships. Countries ensured universal coverage for COVID-19-related services, even for groups not usually entitled to free publicly financed health care, such as undocumented migrants. We conclude that flexibility, speed and adaptive management in health policy responses were key to responding to immediate needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Financial barriers to accessing care as well as potentially higher mortality rates were avoided in most of the countries during the first wave. Yet it is still early to assess to what extent countries were able to maintain essential services without undermining equitable access to high quality care.

Nordic responses to Covid-19: Governance and policy measures in the early phases of the pandemic.

This paper explores and compares health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the context of existing governance features. Content compiled in the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor combined with other publicly available country information serve as the foundation for this analysis. The analysis mainly covers early response until August 2020, but includes some key policy and epidemiological developments up until December 2020. Our findings suggest that despite the many similarities in adopted policy measures, the five countries display differences in implementation as well as outcomes. Declaration of state of emergency has differed in the Nordic region, whereas the emphasis on specialist advisory agencies in the decision-making process is a common feature. There may be differences in how respective populations complied with the recommended measures, and we suggest that other structural and circumstantial factors may have an important role in variations in outcomes across the Nordic countries. The high incidence rates among migrant populations and temporary migrant workers, as well as differences in working conditions are important factors to explore further. An important question for future research is how the COVID-19 epidemic will influence legislation and key principles of governance in the Nordic countries.

European countries' responses in ensuring sufficient physical infrastructure and workforce capacity during the first COVID-19 wave.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on health systems' capacities. These capacities include physical infrastructure, such as bed capacities and medical equipment, and healthcare professionals. Based on information extracted from the COVID-19 Health System Reform Monitor, this paper analyses the strategies that 45 countries in Europe have taken to secure sufficient health care infrastructure and workforce capacities to tackle the crisis, focusing on the hospital sector. While pre-crisis capacities differed across countries, some strategies to boost surge capacity were very similar. All countries designated COVID-19 units and expanded hospital and ICU capacities. Additional staff were mobilised and the existing health workforce was redeployed to respond to the surge in demand for care. While procurement of personal protective equipment at the international and national levels proved difficult at the beginning due to global shortages, countries found innovative solutions to increase internal production and enacted temporary measures to mitigate shortages. The pandemic has shown that coordination mechanisms informed by real-time monitoring of available health care resources are a prerequisite for adaptive surge capacity in public health crises, and that closer cooperation between countries is essential to build resilient responses to COVID-19.

Providing health services effectively during the first wave of COVID-19: A cross-country comparison on planning services, managing cases, and maintaining essential services.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered abrupt challenges for health care providers, requiring them to simultaneously plan for and manage a rise of COVID-19 cases while maintaining essential health services. Since March 2020, the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor, a joint initiative of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, the WHO Regional Office for Europe, and the European Commission, has documented country responses to COVID-19 using a structured template which includes a section on provision of care. Using the information available on the platform, this paper analyzes how countries planned services for potential surge capacity, designed patient flows ensuring separation between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients, and maintained routine services in both hospital and ambulatory settings. Despite very real differences in the organization of health and care services, there were many similarities in country responses. These include transitioning the management of COVID-19 mild cases from hospitals to outpatient settings, increasing the use of remote consultations, and cancelling or postponing non-urgent services during the height of the first wave. In the immediate future, countries will have to continue balancing care for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients to minimize adverse health outcomes, ideally with supporting guidelines and COVID-19-specific care zones. Looking forward, policymakers will have to consider whether strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic will become permanent features of care provision.

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.

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.

United Kingdom: health system summary

This Health System Summary is based on the United Kingdom: Health System Review (HiT) published in 2022. Health System Summaries use a concise format to communicate central features of country health systems and analyze 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.

Gaps in coverage and access in the European Union.

This study identifies gaps in universal health coverage in the European Union, using a questionnaire sent to the Health Systems and Policy Monitor network of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. The questionnaire was based on a conceptual framework with four access dimensions: population coverage, service coverage, cost coverage, and service access. With respect to population coverage, groups often excluded from statutory coverage include asylum seekers and irregular residents. Some countries exclude certain social-professional groups (e.g. civil servants) from statutory coverage but cover these groups under alternative schemes. In terms of service coverage, excluded or restricted services include optical treatments, dental care, physiotherapy, reproductive health services, and psychotherapy. Early access to new and expensive pharmaceuticals is a concern, especially for rare diseases and cancers. As to cost coverage, some countries introduced protective measures for vulnerable patients in the form of exemptions or ceilings from user chargers, especially for deprived groups or patients with accumulation of out-of-pocket spending. For service access, common issues are low perceived quality and long waiting times, which are exacerbated for rural residents who also face barriers from physical distance. Some groups may lack physical or mental ability to properly formulate their request for care. Currently, available indicators fail to capture the underlying causes of gaps in coverage and access.

Towards equal access to health services in Serbia

Serbia has a comprehensive universal health system withfree access to health care, but there are inequities in the utilisation of health services. Some vulnerable groups, such as those living in poverty or Roma people in settlements, have more barriers in accessing health care. Financial constraints are the main reason for unmet needs, in particular for the less educated and the poorest. Although citizens are generally satisfied with public and private health care services, a significant number of patients are on waiting lists. Therefore, reaching equal access to health services should be one of the leading health policy goals.

Serbia: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Serbian health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. The health of the Serbian population has improved over the last decade. Life expectancy at birth increased slightly in recent years, but it remains, for example, around 5 years below the average across European Union countries. Some favourable trends have been observed in health status and morbidity rates, including a decrease in the incidence of tuberculosis, but population ageing means that chronic conditions and long-standing disability are increasing. The state exercises a strong governance role in Serbia's social health insurance system. Recent efforts have increased centralization by transferring ownership of buildings and equipment to the national level. The health insurance system provides coverage for almost the entire population (98%). Even though the system is comprehensive and universal, with free access to publicly provided health services, there are inequities in access to primary care and certain population groups (such as the most socially and economically disadvantaged, the uninsured, and the Roma) often experience problems in accessing care. The uneven distribution of health professionals across the country and shortages in some specialities also exacerbate accessibility problems. High out-of-pocket payments, amounting to over 40% of total expenditure on health, contribute to relatively high levels of self-reported unmet need for medical care. Health care provision is characterized by the role of the "chosen doctor" in primary health care centres, who acts as a gatekeeper in the system. Recent public health efforts have focused on improving access to preventive health services, in particular, for vulnerable groups. Health system reforms since 2012 have focused on improving infrastructure and technology, and on implementing an integrated health information system. However, the country lacks a transparent and comprehensive system for assessing the benefits of health care investments and determining how to pay for them.

Serbia: health system review

This analysis of the Serbian health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. The health of the Serbian population has improved over the last decade. Life expectancy at birth increased slightly in recent years, but it remains, for example, around 5 years below the average across European Union countries. Some favourable trends have been observed in health status and morbidity rates, including a decrease in the incidence of tuberculosis, but population ageing means that chronic conditions and long-standing disabilityare increasing. The state exercises a strong governance role in Serbia’s social healthinsurance system. Recent efforts have increased centralization by transferring ownership of buildings and equipment to the national level. The health insurance system provides coverage for almost the entire population (98%). Even though the system is comprehensive and universal, with free access to publicly provided health services, there are inequities in access to primary careand certain population groups (such as the most socially and economically disadvantaged, the uninsured, and the Roma) often experience problems in accessing care. The uneven distribution of health professionals across the country and shortages in some specialities also exacerbate accessibility problems. High out-of-pocket payments, amounting to over 40% of totalexpenditure on health, contribute to relatively high levels of self-reported unmet need for medical care. Health care provision is characterized by the role of the “chosen doctor” in primary health care centres, who acts as a gatekeeper in the system. Recent public health efforts have focused on improving access to preventive health services, in particular, for vulnerable groups. Health system reforms since 2012 have focused on improving infrastructure and technology, and on implementing an integrated health information system. However, the country lacks a transparent and comprehensive system for assessing the benefits of health care investments and determining how to pay for them.

Spain: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Spanish health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. Overall health status continues to improve in Spain, and life expectancy is the highest in the European Union. Inequalities in self-reported health have also declined in the last decade, although long-standing disability and chronic conditions are increasing due to an ageing population. The macroeconomic context in the last decade in the country has been characterized by the global economic recession, which resulted in the implementation of health system-specific measures addressed to maintain the sustainability of the system. New legislation was issued to regulate coverage conditions, the benefits package and the participation of patients in the National Health System funding. Despite the budget constraints linked to the economic downturn, the health system remains almost universal, covering 99.1% of the population. Public expenditure in health prevails, with public sources accounting for over 71.1% of total health financing. General taxes are the main source of public funds, with regions (known as Autonomous Communities) managing most of those public health resources. Private spending, mainly related to out-of-pocket payments, has increased over time, and it is now above the EU average. Health care provision continues to be characterized by the strength of primary care, which is the core element of the health system; however, the increasing financing gap as compared with secondary care may challenge primary care in the long-term. Public health efforts over the last decade have focused on increasing health system coordination and providing guidance on addressing chronic conditions and lifestyle factors such as obesity. The underlying principles and goals of the national health system continue to focus on universality, free access, equity and fairness of financing. The evolution of performance measures over the last decade shows the resilience of the health system in the aftermath of the economic crisis, although some structural reforms may be required to improve chronic care management and the reallocation of resources to high-value interventions.

The unexpected outcomes of the closure of 67 inpatient care facilities in 2011 in Romania.

One of the main objectives of the National Strategy for Hospitals Rationalization approved by the Romanian Government in 2011 was to resize the hospital sector in order to improve efficiency. To this end, the government decided the closure of 67 inpatient care facilities with low efficiency scores, giving them the opportunity to become nursing homes for elderly under a national programme financed by the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection. The measure faced a tremendous public opposition that put pressure on politicians to re-open some hospitals, while other hospitals were re-opened by the governments that followed in order to consolidate their power. Since only 20 closed institutions have been reorganized as nursing homes for elderly and almost 40 are currently performing medical activities, this decision was generally perceived as a policy failure. Nevertheless, a thorough analysis, shows that the medical facilities that are still functioning - either merged with other hospitals, or re-organized as state or private medical institutions have improved efficiency by reshaping services provided to the population needs, mobilizing communities and local authorities investments and initiating public-private partnerships. Besides revealing the unexpected benefits resulted from the implementation of this policy, the Romanian experience provides some useful insights for other countries that are also facing the challenge of reducing the oversized hospital sector.