Comparison of COVID-19 Health Risks With Other Viral Occupational Hazards.

The European Commission periodically classifies viruses on their occupational hazards to define the level of protection that workers are entitled to claim. Viruses belonging to Groups 3 and 4 can cause severe human disease and hazard to workers, as well as a spreading risk to the community. However, there is no effective prophylaxis or treatment available for Group 4 viruses. European trade unions and the Commission are negotiating the classification of the COVID-19 virus along these 2 categories. This article weighs the reasons to classify it in Group 3 or 4 while comparing its risks to those of the most significant viruses classified in these 2 categories. COVID-19 characteristics justify its classification in Group 4. Contaminated workers in contact with the public play an important role in disseminating the virus. In hospitals and nursing homes, they increase the overall case fatality rate. By strongly protecting these workers and professionals, the European Union would not only improve health in work environments, but also activate a mechanism key to reducing the COVID-19 burden in the general population. Admittedly, the availability of a new vaccine or treatment would change this conclusion, which was reached in the middle of the first pandemic.

Neo-Hippocratic healthcare policies: professional or industrial healthcare delivery? A choice for doctors, patients, and their organisations.

BACKGROUND: Ethical medical practice requires managing health services to promote professionalism and secure accessibility to care. Commercially financed and industrially managed services strain the physicians' clinical autonomy and ethics because the industry's profitability depends on commercial, clinical standardisation. Private insurance companies also reduce access to care whilst fragmenting and segmenting health systems. Against this background, given the powerful, symbolic significance of their common voice, physicians' and patients' organisations could effectively leverage together political parties and employers' organisations to promote policies favouring access to professional care. MAIN TEXT: To provide a foundation for negotiations between physicians' and patients' organisations, we propose policy principles derived from an analysis of rights-holders and duty-bearers' stakes, i.e., patients, physicians and health professionals, and taxpayers. Their concerns are scrutinised from the standpoints of public health and right to health. Illustrated with post-WWII European policies, these principles are formulated as inputs for tentative action-research. The paper also identifies potential stumbling blocks for collective doctor/patient negotiations based on the authors' personal experience. The patients' concerns are care accessibility, quality, and price. Those of physicians and other professionals are problem-solving capacity, autonomy, intellectual progress, ethics, work environment, and revenue. The majority of taxpayers have an interest in taxes being progressive and public spending on health regressive. Mutual aid associations tend to under-estimate the physician's role in delivering care. Physicians' organisations often disregard the mission of financing care and its impact on healthcare quality. CONCLUSION: The proposed physicians-patients' alliance could promote policies in tune with professional ethics, prevent European policies' putting industrial concerns above suffering and death, bar care financing from the ambit of international trade treaties, and foster international cooperation policies consistent with the principles that inspire the design of healthcare policies at home and so reduce international migration. To be credible partners in this alliance, physicians' associations should promote a public health culture amongst their members and a team culture in healthcare services. To promote a universal health system, patients' organisations should strive to represent universal health interests rather than those of patients with specific diseases, ethnic groups, or social classes.

Medical heuristics and action-research: professionalism versus science.

BACKGROUND: Professional knowledge aims at improving practice. It reduces uncertainty in decision-making, improves effectiveness in action and relevance in evaluation, stimulates reflexivity, and subjects practice to ethical standards. Heuristics is an approach to problem-solving, learning, and discovery employing a practical methodology that, although not optimal, is sufficient for achieving immediate goals. This article identifies the desirable, heuristic particularities of research in professional, medical practice; and it identifies what distinguishes this research from scientific research. MAIN TEXT: We examine the limits of biomedical and sociological research to produce professional knowledge. Then, we derive the heuristic characteristics of professional research from a meta-analysis of two action-research projects aimed at securing access to essential generic drugs in Senegal and improving physicians' self-assessment and healthcare coordination in Belgium. To study healthcare, biomedical sciences ignore how clinical decisions are implemented. Decisions are built into an articulated knowledge system, such as (clinical) epidemiology, where those studied are standardisable - while taking care of patients is an idiosyncratic, value-based, person-to-person process that largely eludes probabilistic methodologies. Social sciences also reach their limits here because descriptive, interpretative methods cannot help with gesture and speech quality, while the management of the patient's suffering and risks makes each of them unique. Research into medical professionalism is normative as it is intended to formulate recommendations. Scientific data and descriptions are useful to the practitioner randomly, only from the similarities in the environment of the authors and their readers. Such recommendations can be conceived of as strategies, i.e., multi-resource and multi-stage action models to improve clinical and public health practice. Action learning and action-research are needed to design and implement these strategies, because their complexity implies trial and error. To validate a strategy, repeated experiences are needed. Its reproducibility assumes the description of the context. To participate in medical action-research, the investigator needs professional proficiency - a frequent difficulty in academic settings. CONCLUSION: Some criteria to assess the relevance of publicly funded clinical and public health research can be derived from the difference between scientific and professional knowledge, i.e. the knowledge gained with real-life experience in the field.

Integrating clinical and public health knowledge in support of joint medical practice.

BACKGROUND: Strong relations between medicine and public health have long been advocated. Today, professional medical practice assumes joint clinical/public health objectives: GPs are expected to practice community medicine; Hospital specialists can be involved in disease control and health service organisation; Doctors can teach, coach, evaluate, and coordinate care; Clinicians should interpret protocols with reference to clinical epidemiology. Public health physicians should tailor preventive medicine to individual health risks. This paper is targeted at those practitioners and academics responsible for their teams' professionalism and the accessibility of care, where the authors argue in favour of the epistemological integration of clinical medicine and public health. MAIN TEXT: Based on empirical evidence the authors revisit the epistemological border of clinical and public health knowledge to support joint practice. From action-research and cognitive psychology, we derive clinical/public health knowledge categories that require different transmission and discovery techniques. The knowledge needed to support the universal human right to access professional care bridges both clinical and public health concepts, and summons professional ethics to validate medical decisions. To provide a rational framework for teaching and research, we propose the following categories: 'Know-how/practice techniques', corresponding a.o. to behavioural, communication, and manual skills; 'Procedural knowledge' to choose and apply procedures that meet explicit quality criteria; 'Practical knowledge' to design new procedures and inform the design of established procedures in new contexts; and Theoretical knowledge teaches the reasoning and theory of knowledge and the laws of existence and functioning of reality to validate clinical and public health procedures. Even though medical interventions benefit from science, they are, in essence, professional: science cannot standardise eco-biopsychosocial decisions; doctor-patient negotiations; emotional intelligence; manual and behavioural skills; and resolution of ethical conflicts. CONCLUSION: Because the quality of care utilises the professionals' skill-base but is also affected by their intangible motivations, health systems should individually tailor continuing medical education and treat collective knowledge management as a priority. Teamwork and coaching by those with more experience provide such opportunities. In the future, physicians and health professionals could jointly develop clinical/public health integrated knowledge. To this end, governments should make provision to finance non-clinical activities.

Objectives, methods, and results in critical health systems and policy research: evaluating the healthcare market.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1980s, markets have turned increasingly to intangible goods - healthcare, education, the arts, and justice. Over 40 years, the authors investigated healthcare commoditisation to produce policy knowledge relevant to patients, physicians, health professionals, and taxpayers. This paper revisits their objectives, methods, and results to enlighten healthcare policy design and research. MAIN TEXT: This paper meta-analyses the authors' research that evaluated the markets impact on healthcare and professional culture and investigated how they influenced patients' timely access to quality care and physicians' working conditions. Based on these findings, they explored the political economic of healthcare. In low-income countries the analysed research showed that, through loans and cooperation, multilateral agencies restricted the function of public services to disease control, with subsequent catastrophic reductions in access to care, health de-medicalisation, increased avoidable mortality, and failure to attain the narrow MDGs in Africa. The pro-market reforms enacted in middle-income countries entailed the purchaser-provider split, privatisation of healthcare pre-financing, and government contracting of health finance management to private insurance companies. To establish the materiality of a cause-and-effect relationship, the authors compared the efficiency of Latin American national health systems according to whether or not they were pro-market and complied with international policy standards. While pro-market health economists acknowledge that no market can offer equitable access to healthcare without effective regulation and control, the authors showed that both regulation and control were severely constrained in Asia by governance and medical secrecy issues. In high-income countries they questioned the interest for population health of healthcare insurance companies, whilst comparing access to care and health expenditures in the European Union vs. the U.S., the Netherlands, and Switzerland. They demonstrated that commoditising healthcare increases mortality and suffering amenable to care considerably and carries professional, cultural, and ethical risks for doctors and health professionals. Pro-market policies systems cause health systems inefficiency, inequity in access to care and strain professionals' ethics. CONCLUSION: Policy research methodologies benefit from being inductive, as health services and systems evaluations, and population health studies are prerequisites to challenge official discourse and to explore the historical, economic, sociocultural, and political determinants of public policies.

A plea to merge clinical and public health practices: reasons and consequences.

BACKGROUND: Revisiting professionalism, both as a medical ideal and educational topic, this paper asks whether, in the rise of artificial intelligence, healthcare commoditisation and environmental challenges, a rationale exists for merging clinical and public health practices. To optimize doctors' impact on community health, clinicians should introduce public health thinking and action into clinical practice, above and beyond controlling nosocomial infections and iatrogenesis. However, in the interest of effectiveness they should do everything possible to personalise care delivery. To solve this paradox, we explore why it is necessary for the boundaries between medicine and public health to be blurred. MAIN BODY: Proceeding sequentially, we derive standards for medical professionalism from care quality criteria, neo-Hippocratic ethics, public health concepts, and policy outcomes. Thereby, we formulate benchmarks for health care management and apply them to policy evaluation. During this process we justify the social, professional - and by implication, non-commercial, non-industrial - mission of healthcare financing and policies. The complexity of ethical, person-centred, biopsychosocial practice requires a human interface between suffering, health risks and their therapeutic solution - and thus legitimises the medical profession's existence. Consequently, the universal human right to healthcare is a right to access professionally delivered care. Its enforcement requires significant updating of the existing medical culture, and not just in respect of the man/machine interface. This will allow physicians to focus on what artificial intelligence cannot do, or not do well. These duties should become the touchstone of their practice, knowledge and ethics. Artificial intelligence must support medical professionalism, not determine it. Because physicians need sufficient autonomy to exercise professional judgement, medical ethics will conflict with attempts to introduce clinical standardisation as a managerial paradigm, which is what happens when industrial-style management is applied to healthcare. CONCLUSION: Public healthcare financing and policy ought to support medical professionalism, alongside integrated clinical and public health practice, and its management. Publicly-financed health management should actively promote ethics in publicly- oriented services. Commercialised healthcare is antithetical to ethical medical, and to clinical / public health practice integration. To lobby governments effectively, physicians need to appreciate the political economy of care.

In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics.

BACKGROUND: Since some form of dual clinical/public health practice is desirable, this paper explains why their ethics should be combined to influence medical practice and explores a way to achieve that. MAIN TEXT: In our attempt to merge clinical and public health ethics, we empirically compared the individual and collective health consequences of two illustrative lists of medical and public health ethical tenets and discussed their reciprocal relevance to praxis. The studied codes share four principles, namely, 1. respect for individual/collective rights and the patient's autonomy; 2. cultural respect and treatment that upholds the patient's dignity; 3. honestly informed consent; and 4. confidentiality of information. However, they also shed light on the strengths and deficiencies of each other's tenets. Designing a combined clinical and public health code requires fleshing out three similar principles, namely, beneficence, medical and public health engagement in favour of health equality, and community and individual participation; and adopting three stand-alone principles, namely, professional excellence, non-maleficence, and scientific excellence. Finally, we suggest that eco-biopsychosocial and patient-centred care delivery and dual clinical/public health practice should become a doctor's moral obligation. We propose to call ethics based on non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice - the values upon which, according to Pellegrino and Thomasma, the others are grounded and that physicians and ethicists use to resolve ethical dilemmas - "neo-Hippocratic". The neo- prefix is justified by the adjunct of a distributive dimension (justice) to traditional Hippocratic ethics. CONCLUSION: Ethical codes ought to be constantly updated. The above values do not escape the rule. We have formulated them to feed discussions in health services and medical associations. Not only are these values fragmentary and in progress, but they have no universal ambition: they are applicable to the dilemmas of modern Western medicine only, not Ayurvedic or Shamanic medicine, because each professional culture has its own philosophical rationale. Efforts to combine clinical and public health ethics whilst resolving medical dilemmas can reasonably be expected to call upon the physician's professional identity because they are intellectual challenges to be associated with case management.

Commercial Health Care Financing: The Cause of U.S., Dutch, and Swiss Health Systems Inefficiency?

This article evaluates the performance of 3 industrialized nations that have pursued market-based financing models, focusing on equity in access to care, care quality, health status, and efficiency. It then assesses the consistency of the findings with those of different research teams. Using secondary data obtained from a semi-structured review of articles from 2000 to 2017, we discuss the hypothesis that commercial health care insurance is detrimental to accessing professional health care and to population health status. The results show that in 2010 the unmet care needs of both poor and rich Americans exceeded those of the poor in several industrial countries. The number of Dutch adults experiencing financial obstacles to health care quadrupled between 2007 and 2013, and 22% of Swiss adults reported skipping needed care in a 2016 survey. The most negative impacts of "managed care" on care quality are its tight constraints on physicians' professional autonomy; a large reliance on the physicians' material motivation; health service fragmentation; and the tendency to apply evidence-based medicine too rigidly. Countries with a commercial insurance monopoly generally remained above the maternal, infant, and neonatal mortality rates versus the health-spending regression line. We conclude that the most inefficient system is where the insurance market has achieved its maximal development and that care industrialization contributes to the comparatively poor performance of the U.S., Dutch, and Swiss health systems.

Doctors' experience of coordination across care levels and associated factors. A cross-sectional study in public healthcare networks of six Latin American countries.

Improving coordination between primary care (PC) and secondary care (SC) has become a policy priority in recent years for many Latin American public health systems looking to reinforce a healthcare model based on PC. However, despite being a longstanding concern, it has scarcely been analyzed in this region. This paper analyses the level of clinical coordination between PC and SC experienced by doctors and explores influencing factors in public healthcare networks of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay. A cross-sectional study was carried out based on a survey of doctors working in the study networks (348 doctors per country). The COORDENA questionnaire was applied to measure their experiences of clinical management and information coordination, and their related factors. Descriptive analyses were conducted and a multivariate logistic regression model was generated to assess the relationship between general perception of care coordination and associated factors. With some differences between countries, doctors generally reported limited care coordination, mainly in the transfer of information and communication for the follow-up of patients and access to SC for referred patients, especially in the case of PC doctors and, to a lesser degree, inappropriate clinical referrals and disagreement over treatments, in the case of SC doctors. Factors associated with a better general perception of coordination were: being a SC doctor, considering that there is enough time for coordination within consultation hours, job and salary satisfaction, identifying the PC doctor as the coordinator of patient care across levels, knowing the doctors of the other care level and trusting in their clinical skills. These results provide evidence of problems in the implementation of a primary care-based model that require changes in aspects of employment, organization and interaction between doctors, all key factors for coordination.

Patient perceptions of continuity of health care and associated factors. Cross-sectional study in municipalities of central Colombia and north-eastern Brazil.

Despite the fragmentation of healthcare provision being considered one of the main obstacles to attaining effective health care in Latin America, very little is known about patients' perceptions. This paper analyses the level of continuity of health care perceived by users and explores influencing factors in two municipalities of Colombia and Brazil, by means of a cross-sectional study based on a survey of a multistage probability sample of people who had suffered at least one health problem within the previous three months (2163 in Colombia; 2167 in Brazil). An adapted and validated version of the CCAENA© (Questionnaire of care continuity across levels of health care) was applied. Logistic regression models were generated to assess the relationship between perceptions of the different types of health care continuity and sociodemographic characteristics, health needs, and organizational factors. The results show lower levels of continuity across care levels in information transfer and care coherence and higher levels for the ongoing patient-doctor relationship, albeit with differences between the two countries. They also show greater consistency of doctors in the Brazilian study areas, especially in primary care. Consistency of doctors was not only positively associated with the patient-doctor ongoing relationship in the study areas of both countries, but also with information transfer and care coherence across care levels. The study area and health needs (the latter negatively for patients with poor self-rated health and positively for those with at least one chronic condition) were associated with all types of continuity of care. The influence of the sex or income varied depending on the country. The influence of the insurance scheme in the Colombian sample was not statistically significant. Both countries should implement policies to improve coordination between care levels, especially regarding information transfer and job stability for primary care doctors, both key factors to guarantee quality of care.

Barriers to healthcare coordination in market-based and decentralized public health systems: a qualitative study in healthcare networks of Colombia and Brazil.

Although integrated healthcare networks (IHNs) are promoted in Latin America in response to health system fragmentation, few analyses on the coordination of care across levels in these networks have been conducted in the region. The aim is to analyse the existence of healthcare coordination across levels of care and the factors influencing it from the health personnel' perspective in healthcare networks of two countries with different health systems: Colombia, with a social security system based on managed competition and Brazil, with a decentralized national health system. A qualitative, exploratory and descriptive-interpretative study was conducted, based on a case study of healthcare networks in four municipalities. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with a three stage theoretical sample of (a) health (112) and administrative (66) professionals of different care levels, and (b) managers of providers (42) and insurers (14). A thematic content analysis was conducted, segmented by cases, informant groups and themes. The results reveal poor clinical information transfer between healthcare levels in all networks analysed, with added deficiencies in Brazil in the coordination of access and clinical management. The obstacles to care coordination are related to the organization of both the health system and the healthcare networks. In the health system, there is the existence of economic incentives to compete (exacerbated in Brazil by partisan political interests), the fragmentation and instability of networks in Colombia and weak planning and evaluation in Brazil. In the healthcare networks, there are inadequate working conditions (temporary and/or part-time contracts) which hinder the use of coordination mechanisms, and inadequate professional training for implementing a healthcare model in which primary care should act as coordinator in patient care. Reforms are needed in these health systems and networks in order to modify incentives, strengthen the state planning and supervision functions and improve professional working conditions and skills.

Evaluating the effectiveness of care integration strategies in different healthcare systems in Latin America: the EQUITY-LA II quasi-experimental study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Although fragmentation in the provision of healthcare is considered an important obstacle to effective care, there is scant evidence on best practices in care coordination in Latin America. The aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of a participatory shared care strategy in improving coordination across care levels and related care quality, in health services networks in six different healthcare systems of Latin America. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A controlled before and after quasi-experimental study taking a participatory action research approach. In each country, two comparable healthcare networks were selected--intervention and control. The study contains four phases: (1) A baseline study to establish network performance in care coordination and continuity across care levels, using (A) qualitative methods: semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a criterion sample of health managers, professionals and users; and (B) quantitative methods: two questionnaire surveys with samples of 174 primary and secondary care physicians and 392 users with chronic conditions per network. Sample size was calculated to detect a proportion difference of 15% and 10%, before and after intervention (α=0.05; ß=0.2 in a two-sided test); (2) a bottom-up participatory design and implementation of shared care strategies involving micro-level care coordination interventions to improve the adequacy of patient referral and information transfer. Strategies are selected through a participatory process by the local steering committee (local policymakers, health care network professionals, managers, users and researchers), supported by appropriate training; (3) Evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions by measuring changes in levels of care coordination and continuity 18 months after implementation, applying the same design as in the baseline study; (4) Cross-country comparative analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study complies with international and national legal stipulations on ethics. Conditions of the study procedure were approved by each country's ethical committee. A variety of dissemination activities are implemented addressing the main stakeholders. Registration No.257 Clinical Research Register of the Santa Fe Health Department, Argentina.

Do existing mechanisms contribute to improvements in care coordination across levels of care in health services networks? Opinions of the health personnel in Colombia and Brazil.

BACKGROUND: The fragmentation of healthcare provision has given rise to a wide range of interventions within organizations to improve coordination across levels of care, primarily in high income countries but also in some middle and low-income countries. The aim is to analyze the use of coordination mechanisms in healthcare networks and its implications for the delivery of health care. This is studied from the perspective of health personnel in two countries with different health systems, Colombia and Brazil. METHODS: A qualitative, exploratory and descriptive-interpretative study was conducted, based on a case study of healthcare networks in two municipalities in each country. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with a three stage theoretical sample of a) health (112) and administrative (66) professionals of different care levels, and b) managers of providers (42) and insurers (14). A thematic content analysis was conducted, segmented by cases, informant groups and themes. RESULTS: The results show that care coordination mechanisms are poorly implemented in general. However, the results are marginally better in certain segments of the Colombian networks analyzed (ambulatory centres with primary and secondary care co-location owned by or tied to the contributory scheme insurers, and public providers of the subsidized scheme); and in the network of the state capital in Brazil. Professionals point to numerous problems in the use of existing mechanisms, such as the insufficient recording of information in referral forms, low frequency and level of participation in shared clinical sessions, low adherence to the few available clinical guidelines and the lack of or inadequate referral of patients by the patient referral centres, particularly in the Brazilian networks. The absence or limited use of care coordination mechanisms leads, according to informants, to the inadequate follow-up of patients, interruptions in care and duplication of tests. Professionals use informal strategies to try to overcome these limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate not only the limited implementation of mechanisms for coordination across care levels, but also a limited use of existing mechanisms in the healthcare networks analyzed. This has a negative impact on coordination, efficiency and quality of care. Organizational changes are required in the networks and healthcare systems to address these problems.

Regional-based Integrated Healthcare Network policy in Brazil: from formulation to practice.

BACKGROUND: Regional-based Integrated Healthcare Networks (IHNs) have been promoted in Brazil to overcome the fragmentation due to the health system decentralization to the municipal level; however, evaluations are scarce. The aim of this article is to analyse the content of IHN policies in force in Brazil, and the factors that influence policy implementation from the policymakers' perspective. METHODS: A two-fold, exploratory and descriptive qualitative study was carried out based on (1) content analysis of policy documents selected to meet the following criteria: legislative documents dealing with regional-based IHNs; enacted by federal government; and in force, (2) semi-structured individual interviews were conducted to a theoretical sample of policymakers at federal (eight), state (five) and municipal levels (four). Final sample size was reached by saturation of information. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The results show difficulties in the implementation of IHN policies due to weaknesses that arise from the policy design and the performance of the three levels of government. There is a lack of specificity as to the criteria and tools for configuring and financing IHNs that need to be agreed upon between involved governments. For their part, policymakers emphasize the difficulty of establishing agreements in a health system with disincentives for collaboration between municipalities. The allocation of responsibilities that are too complex for the capacity and size of the municipalities, the abandonment of essential functions such as network planning by states and the strategic role by the Ministry, the 'invasion' of competences among levels of government and high political turnover are also highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of regional-based IHN policy in Brazil is hampered by the decentralized organization of the health system to the municipal level, suggesting the need to centralize certain functions to regional structures or states and to define better the role of the government levels involved.

Determinantes del uso de distintos niveles asistenciales en el Sistema General de Seguridad Social en Salud y Sistema Único de Salud en Colombia y Brasil / Determinants of the use of different healthcare levels in the General System of Social Security in Health in Colombia and the Unified Health System in Brazil

Objetivo. Analizar comparativamente la utilización de servicios de los distintos niveles asistenciales y sus determinantes, de dos sistemas de salud diferentes, Sistema General de Seguridad Social en Salud (SGSSS) y Sistema Único de Salud (SUS), en municipios de Colombia y Brasil. Métodos. Estudio transversal basado en encuesta poblacional en dos municipios de Colombia (n = 2163) y dos de Brasil (n = 2155). Variables resultado: utilización de los servicios de atención primaria, especializada y urgencias en los últimos 3 meses. Variables explicativas: necesidad, factores capacitantes y predisponentes. Análisis bivariado y regresiones logísticas multivariadas por nivel asistencial y país. Resultados. Los determinantes de la utilización varían según el nivel asistencial y el país. Padecer una enfermedad crónica se asocia a un mayor uso de atención primaria y especializada en Colombia, y además a las urgencias en Brasil. En Colombia, los afiliados al régimen contributivo utilizan más los servicios del SGSSS que los del subsidiado en atención primaria y especializada, o que los no asegurados en cualquier nivel; en Brasil, la población de baja renta y sin seguro privado hace un mayor uso del SUS en cualquier nivel de atención. En ambos países, conocer el centro de salud asignado y tener una fuente regular de atención incrementa el uso de la atención primaria y el conocimiento del hospital de referencia, el de especializada y urgencias. Conclusiones. La influencia de los determinantes del uso difiere según el nivel de atención utilizado en ambos países, por lo que se subraya la necesidad de analizarlo desagregando por nivel asistencial (AU)

Objective. To compare the use of different healthcare levels, and its determinants, in two different health systems, the General System of Social Security in Health (GSSSH) and the Unified Health System (UHS) in municipalities in Colombia and Brazil. Methods. A cross-sectional study was carried out, based on a population survey in two municipalities in Colombia (n = 2163) and two in Brazil (n = 2155). Outcome variables consisted of the use of primary care services, outpatient secondary care services, and emergency care in the previous 3 months. Explanatory variables were need and predisposing and enabling factors. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed by healthcare level and country. Results. The determinants of use differed by healthcare level and country: having a chronic disease was associated with a greater use of primary and outpatient secondary care in Colombia, and was also associated with the use of emergency care in Brazil. In Colombia, persons enrolled in the contributory scheme more frequently used the services of the GSSSH than persons enrolled with subsidized contributions in primary and outpatient secondary care and more than persons without insurance in any healthcare level. In Brazil, the low-income population and those without private insurance more frequently used the UHS at any level. In both countries, the use of primary care was increased when persons knew the healthcare center to which they were assigned and if they had a regular source of care. Knowledge of the referral hospital increased the use of outpatient secondary care and emergency care. Conclusions. In both countries, the influence of the determinants of use differed according to the level of care used, emphasizing the need to analyze healthcare use by disaggregating it by level of care (AU)

[Determinants of the use of different healthcare levels in the General System of Social Security in Health in Colombia and the Unified Health System in Brazil]. / Determinantes del uso de distintos niveles asistenciales en el Sistema General de Seguridad Social en Salud y Sistema Único de Salud en Colombia y Brasil.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of different healthcare levels, and its determinants, in two different health systems, the General System of Social Security in Health (GSSSH) and the Unified Health System (UHS) in municipalities in Colombia and Brazil. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out, based on a population survey in two municipalities in Colombia (n=2163) and two in Brazil (n=2155). Outcome variables consisted of the use of primary care services, outpatient secondary care services, and emergency care in the previous 3 months. Explanatory variables were need and predisposing and enabling factors. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed by healthcare level and country. RESULTS: The determinants of use differed by healthcare level and country: having a chronic disease was associated with a greater use of primary and outpatient secondary care in Colombia, and was also associated with the use of emergency care in Brazil. In Colombia, persons enrolled in the contributory scheme more frequently used the services of the GSSSH than persons enrolled with subsidized contributions in primary and outpatient secondary care and more than persons without insurance in any healthcare level. In Brazil, the low-income population and those without private insurance more frequently used the UHS at any level. In both countries, the use of primary care was increased when persons knew the healthcare center to which they were assigned and if they had a regular source of care. Knowledge of the referral hospital increased the use of outpatient secondary care and emergency care. CONCLUSIONS: In both countries, the influence of the determinants of use differed according to the level of care used, emphasizing the need to analyze healthcare use by disaggregating it by level of care.

Management commitments and primary care: another lesson from Costa Rica for the world?

Maintained dedication to primary care has fostered a public health delivery system with exceptional outcomes in Costa Rica. For more than a decade, management commitments have been part of Costa Rican health reform. We assessed the effect of the Costa Rican management commitments on access and quality of care and on compliance with their intended objectives. We constructed seven hypotheses on opinions of primary care providers. Through a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach, we tested these hypotheses and interpreted the research findings. Management commitments consume an excessive proportion of consultation time, inflate recordkeeping, reduce comprehensiveness in primary care consultations, and induce a disproportionate consumption of hospital emergency services. Their formulation relies on norms in need of optimization, their control on unreliable sources. They also affect professionalism. In Costa Rica, management commitments negatively affect access and quality of care and pose a threat to the public service delivery system. The failures of this pay-for-performance-like initiative in an otherwise well-performing health system cast doubts on the appropriateness of pay-for-performance for health systems strengthening in less advanced environments.

Barriers in access to healthcare in countries with different health systems. A cross-sectional study in municipalities of central Colombia and north-eastern Brazil.

There are few comprehensive studies available on barriers encountered from the initial seeking of healthcare through to the resolution of the health problem; in other words, on access in its broad domain. For Colombia and Brazil, countries with different healthcare systems but common stated principles, there have been no such analyses to date. This paper compares factors that influence access in its broad domain in two municipalities of each country, by means of a cross-sectional study based on a survey of a multistage probability sample of people who had had at least one health problem within the last three months (2163 in Colombia and 2155 in Brazil). The results reveal important barriers to healthcare access in both samples, with notable differences between and within countries, once differences in sociodemographic characteristics and health needs are accounted for. In the Colombian study areas, the greatest barriers were encountered in initial access to healthcare and in resolving the problem, and similarly when entering the health service in the Brazilian study areas. Differences can also be detected in the use of services: in Colombia greater geographical and economic barriers and the need for authorization from insurers are more relevant, whereas in Brazil, it is the limited availability of health centres, doctors and drugs that leads to longer waiting times. There are also differences according to enrolment status and insurance scheme in Colombia, and between areas in Brazil. The barriers appear to be related to the Colombian system's segmented, non-universal nature, and to the involvement of insurance companies, and to chronic underfunding of the public system in Brazil. Further research is required, but the results obtained reveal critical points to be tackled by health policies in both countries.