Search

This article provides a snapshot of primary prevention activities in hospitals in 20 European high-income countries, based on inputs from experts of the Observatory's Health Systems and Policies Monitor (HSPM) network using a structured questionnaire. We found that in the vast majority of countries (15), there are no systematic national policies on primary prevention in hospitals. Five countries (Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Romania and the United Kingdom) reported systematic primary prevention activities in hospitals, although in one of them (Cyprus) this was due to the fact that small hospitals in rural areas or less populated districts host providers of primary care. In two of the five countries with systematic national policies on primary prevention, there are no incentives (financial or otherwise) to provide these interventions. The remaining three countries (Finland, Romania and the United Kingdom) report the existence of incentives, but only two of them (Romania and the United Kingdom) provide financial incentives in the form of additional funding. Only two of the 20 countries (Ireland and the United Kingdom) make explicit use of the Making Every Contact Count (MECC) approach. Overall, it can be concluded that there is little focus on primary prevention in hospitals in Europe, which may be seen as a missed opportunity., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no financial interests and no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

This article compares the health system responses to COVID-19 in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania from February 2020 until the end of 2020. It explores similarities and differences between the three countries, building primarily on the methodology and content compiled in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM). We find that all three countries entered the COVID-19 crisis with common problems, including workforce shortages and underdeveloped and underutilized preventive and primary care. The countries reacted swiftly to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, declaring a state of emergency in March 2020 and setting up new governance mechanisms. The initial response benefited from a centralized approach and high levels of public trust but proved to be only a short-term solution. Over time, governance became dominated by political and economic considerations, communication to the public became contradictory, and levels of public trust declined dramatically. The three countries created additional bed capacity for the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the first wave, but a greater challenge was to ensure a sufficient supply of qualified health workers. New digital and remote tools for the provision of non-COVID-19 health services were introduced or used more widely, with an increase in telephone or online consultations and a simplification of administrative procedures. However, the provision and uptake of non-COVID-19 health services was still affected negatively by the pandemic. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed pre-existing health system and governance challenges in the three countries, leading to a large number of preventable deaths., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)