Search

Policy PointsPrivate health insurance (PHI) in France has been facing critical changes over the past 30 years. A complementary and voluntary scheme, it has been historically dominated by nonprofit entities. However, the share of for‐profit insurance companies in the sector has significantly increased. Nonprofit firms also changed their strategies and mimicked some for‐profit behaviors.The present paper argues that this process is a result of the conflict‐provoking coevolution of the insurance and health care sectors. Trying to improve the regulation of the insurance industry as whole, two European directives first jeopardized the business model of nonprofit entities. Then, two national reforms designed to improve health coverage significantly increased competition among insurers, notably in the area of corporate‐level contracts.Decoupling the insurance and health care sectors has become a major source of policy feedback and unexpected outcomes of reforms affecting the very organization of PHI. Context: In France, private health insurance (PHI) has an exceptionally high level of coverage and accounts for 13.7% of health expenditures. A complementary and voluntary scheme, it has been historically dominated by nonprofit, mutual benefit societies. Over the past 20 years, however, the market share of for‐profit insurance companies has increased by 47%. Financialization of the field developed, and competition based on new risk management strategies also increased. The broad aim of this paper is to characterize and to elucidate the causes of this trend. More specifically, we are interested in how and to what extent a series of supranational and national policies contributed to this situation. Method: Our data come from three sources. We first reviewed documents published by health insurers, government reports, and newspaper articles. We then conducted two semistructured interview campaigns between September 2017 and May 2018. The first mostly covered private and public actors and their involvement in European Union (EU) policymaking (n = 21). The second series of interviews was conducted with another group of actors directly involved at the French level (n = 16). Findings: Our findings support preliminary observations. PHI in France, we argue, is indeed facing a development of competition and marketlike instruments. Four major policies (two EU directives and two national reforms) played a significant role in this outcome. Surprisingly, however, it has never been the purpose of legislators and policymakers: while EU directives created a regulatory framework for insurance activities within the Single Market, policies adopted at the national level initially aimed at improving health coverage. We show that it is the interactions and the noncoordination among all of these policies that explain their unexpected outcome. Conclusions: The trend described in this paper is twofold. The first is Europeanization, as PHI in France is increasingly affected by EU legislation. Since this framework tends to favor larger firms and for‐profit companies, a reduction in statutory coverage can no longer be considered a quasi‐neutral transfer from (publicly owned) social security to nonprofit providers. At the same time, PHI is shifting toward collectivization: as competition increases, complementary health coverage is becoming gradually standardized and based at the corporate level. Together, these changes are likely to reduce freedom of choice and individual welfare, an assumption supported by studies published on the most recent period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This paper describes the situation regarding COVID‐19 emergency in France as of early May 2020, the main policies to fight this virus, and the roles and responsibilities of nurses regarding their work at this time, as well as the challenges facing the profession. Background: Europe continues to be affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic. At the time of writing France was the fourth country with the highest number of detected cases and cumulative deaths. Sources of evidence: Websites of the World Health Organization, French Government, French Agency of Public Health, French National Council of Nurses and ClinicalTrials.gov database, as well as the experiences of the authors. Discussion: The history of the development of the pandemic in France helps explain the establishment of the state of health emergency and containment of the population. Many decisions made had undesirable repercussions, particularly in terms of intra‐family violence, mental health disorders and the renunciation of care. Hospitals and primary care services, with significant investment by nurses, played a key role in the care of persons with and without COVID‐19. Conclusion: France has suffered a very high toll in terms of COVID‐19 morbidity and mortality, and effects on its people, health systems and health professionals, including nurses. Implications for nursing practice: Nurses are recognized for their social usefulness in France. However, it is important to consider the collateral effects of this crisis on nurses and nursing and to integrate the health emergency nursing skills established during the pandemic into the standard field of nursing competence. Implications for nursing policy: The nursing profession has expectations of a reflection on and revision of nursing skills as well as of its valorization in the French healthcare system, notably carried out by the French National Council Order of Nurses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim In France, following a long-term decline in smoking prevalence, an increase in smoking was observed between 2005 and 2010, an unusual occurrence in countries in the 'mature' stage of the smoking epidemic. By contrast, smoking prevalence in England, the neighbouring country, continued its long-term decline. Methods We identified and translated recent reports on smoking and tobacco control in France and using these assessed the main data sources on smoking and compared them with similar sources in England, in order to explore possible explanations. In France, national smoking prevalence data are collected 5-yearly, minimizing opportunities for fine-grained analysis; the comparable study in England is implemented annually. Results We identified several probable causes of the recent increased prevalence of smoking in France, the primary one being the absence of sufficient price rises between 2005 and 2010, due probably to the lack of a robust tobacco control strategy, which also appeared to have empowered tobacco industry influence. Funding to compensate tobacconists appears to incentivize tobacco sales and is significantly higher than tobacco control funding. Conclusions Mindful of the limitations of a case-study approach, the absence of sufficient price rises in the context of a weak tobacco control strategy seems the most likely explanation for the recent increase in smoking prevalence in France. A new cancer control plan and a national smoking reduction programme have been proposed by the French government in 2014 which, depending on implementation, may reverse the trend. In both countries, the higher levels of smoking among the more disadvantaged groups are of great concern and require greater political leadership for effective action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]