Search

How have differently institutionalized welfare regimes dealt with the Covid-19 crisis? In particular, how have they confronted the social and economic inequalities exposed by the virus? Taking three European countries--Germany, Sweden, and the UK, corresponding broadly to conservative-continental, social democratic, and liberal regime types--this paper tracks the virus response in the areas of income and employment protection and health and residential care. With attention paid to issues of "capacity" and the institutional arrangements in each case, we find that institutional histories in Germany and Sweden permitted a certain recidivistic reliance on established practices in the areas of employment and social protection. In sum, certain social and economic inequalities were mitigated as these countries set aside recent trends toward "liberalization" and mobilized longer-standing institutional capacities to protect some groups, although by no means all. Evidence of this trend is less clear in the health and residential care sectors, where Germany had existing capacity, allowing its older population to weather the crisis in better order than its counterparts in Sweden and the UK. In the UK, welfare liberalization has led to increased social and economic inequalities and funding reductions in health and residential care--all of which have reduced the country's ability to deal with severe crisis. The Covid response in this case was agile, but also chaotic, with little being done to ameliorate the positions of the most vulnerable groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In Europe, more than 15 million people live with heart failure (HF). It imposes an enormous social, organizational and economic burden. As a reaction to impending impact on healthcare provision, different country-specific structures for HF-care have been established. The aim of this report is to provide an overview and compare the HF-care approaches of Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, and to open the possibility of learning from each other's experience. Methods A mixed methods approach was implemented that included a literature analysis, interviews and questionnaires with HF-patients and caregivers, and expert interviews with representatives from healthcare, health service research and medical informatics. Results The models of HF-care in all countries analyzed are based on the European Society of Cardiology guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of HF. Even though the HF-models differed in design and implementation in practice, key challenges were similar: (i) unequal distribution of care between urban and rural areas, (ii) long waiting times, (iii) unequal access to and provision of healthcare services, (iv) information and communication gaps and (v) inadequate implementation and financing of digital applications. Conclusion Although promising approaches exist to structure and improve HF-care, across the four countries, implementation was reluctant to embrace novel methods. A lack of financial resources and insufficient digitalization making it difficult to adopt new concepts. Integration of HF-nurses seems to be an effective way of improving current models of HF-care. Digital solutions offer further opportunities to overcome communication and coordination gaps and to strengthen self-management skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Burden of comorbidities are largely unknown in JIA. From 2000, national and international patient registries were established to monitor biologic treatment, disease activity and adverse events in patients with JIA. The aim of this analysis was to investigate in parallel, for the first time, three of the largest JIA registries in Europe/internationally—UK JIA Biologic Registers (BCRD/BSPAR-ETN), German biologic registers (BiKeR/JuMBO), multinational Pharmachild—to quantify the occurrence of selected comorbidities in patients with JIA. Methods Information on which data the registers collect were compared. Patient characteristics and levels of comorbidity were presented, focussing on four key conditions: uveitis, MAS, varicella, and history of tuberculosis. Incidence rates of these on MTX/biologic therapy were determined. Results 8066 patients were registered into the three JIA registers with similar history of the four comorbidities across the studies; however, varicella vaccination coverage was higher in Germany (56%) vs UK/Pharmachild (16%/13%). At final follow-up, prevalence of varicella infection was lower in Germany (15%) vs UK/Pharmachild (37%/50%). Prevalence of TB (0.1–1.8%) and uveitis (15–19%) was similar across all registers. The proportion of systemic-JIA patients who ever had MAS was lower in Germany (6%) vs UK (15%) and Pharmachild (17%). Conclusion This analysis is the first and largest to investigate the occurrence of four important comorbidities in three JIA registries in Europe and the role of anti-rheumatic drugs. Combined, these three registries represent one of the biggest collection of cases of JIA worldwide and offer a unique setting for future JIA outcome studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]