Search

Objective This paper examines how negative experiences with the health-care system create a lack of confidence in receiving medical care in seven countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Methods The empirical analysis is based on data from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey 2007, with nationally representative samples of adults aged 18 and over. For the analysis of the experience of cost barriers and confidence in receiving medical care, we conducted pairwise comparisons of group percentages as well as country-wise multivariate logistic regression models. Results Individuals who have experienced cost barriers show a significantly lower level of confidence in receiving safe and quality medical care than those who have not. This effect is most pronounced in the United States, where people who have foregone necessary treatment because of costs are four times as likely to lack confidence as individuals without the experience of cost barriers (adjusted odds ratio 4.00). In New Zealand, Germany, and Canada, individuals with the experience of cost barriers are twice as likely to report low confidence compared with those without this experience (adjusted odds ratios of 1.95, 2.19 and 2.24, respectively). In the Netherlands and UK, cost barriers are only a marginal phenomenon. Conclusions The fact that the experience of financial barriers considerably lowers confidence indicates that financial incentives, such as private co-payments, have a negative effect on overall public support and therefore on the legitimacy of health-care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2011; 18:1358-1370 © 2011 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Abstract The maturation of emergency medicine (EM) as a specialty has coincided with dramatic increases in emergency department (ED) visit rates, both in the United States and around the world. ED crowding has become a public health problem where periodic supply and demand mismatches in ED and hospital resources cause long waiting times and delays in critical treatments. ED crowding has been associated with several negative clinical outcomes, including higher complication rates and mortality. This article describes emergency care systems and the extent of crowding across 15 countries outside of the United States: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Italy, The Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Catalonia (Spain), Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The authors are local emergency care leaders with knowledge of emergency care in their particular countries. Where available, data are provided about visit patterns in each country; however, for many of these countries, no national data are available on ED visits rates or crowding. For most of the countries included, there is both objective evidence of increases in ED visit rates and ED crowding and also subjective assessments of trends toward higher crowding in the ED. ED crowding appears to be worsening in many countries despite the presence of universal health coverage. Scandinavian countries with robust systems to manage acute care outside the ED do not report crowding is a major problem. The main cause for crowding identified by many authors is the boarding of admitted patients, similar to the United States. Many hospitals in these countries have implemented operational interventions to mitigate crowding in the ED, and some countries have imposed strict limits on ED length of stay (LOS), while others have no clear plan to mitigate crowding. An understanding of the causes and potential solutions implemented in these countries can provide a lens into how to mitigate ED crowding in the United States through health policy interventions and hospital operational changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment with new and/or innovative drugs with uncertain safety and efficacy profile is associated with substantial ethical concerns. The main objective of this paper is to present guidance on the use of such drugs contained in: (i) major international codes and guidelines pertaining to medical ethics and biomedical research; (ii) national codes of medical ethics and professional conduct of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, France and Germany. Out of the four international codes and guidelines analysed, only the Declaration of Helsinki addresses the question of the use of unproven drugs. Among national codes, only two (USA and New Zealand) explicitly allow for use of new or innovative drugs. Moreover, treatment with unproven drugs seems to be permissible under the French code, though this is not stated explicitly. The remaining codes do not contain any articles on the use of new and innovative drugs. An update of existing articles, as well as the addition of new guidelines to the codes, should be considered in view of the rapid pace of development and introduction to clinical practice of new drugs. This work is relevant to innovative off-label applications of approved drugs and expanded access to investigational drugs., (© 2018 The British Pharmacological Society.)