Search

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.

The future of long-term care in ten European countries: Review of policy reports and qualitative study among country experts

After the fall of communism, the healthcare systems of Central and Eastern European countries underwent enormous transformation, resulting in departure from publicly financed healthcare. This had significant adverse effects on equity in healthcare, which are still evident. In this paper, we analyzed the role of government and households in financing healthcare in eight countries (EU-8): Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. A desk research method was applied to collect quantitative data on healthcare expenditures and qualitative data on gaps in universal health coverage. A linear regression analysis was used to analyze a trend in health expenditure over the years 2000–2018. Our results indicate that a high reliance on out-of-pocket payments persists in many EU-8 countries, and only a few countries have shown a significant downward trend over time. The gaps in universal coverage in the EU-8 countries are due to explicit rationing (a limited benefit package, patient cost sharing) and implicit mechanisms (wait times). There is need to increase the role of public financing in CEE countries through budget prioritization, reducing patient co-payments for medical products and medicines, and extending the benefit package for these goods, as well as improving the quality of care.

Background Protecting people against financial hardship associated with using health care, is crucial for achieving universal health coverage. Despite the significant improvement happening in the last two decades, household out-of-pocket payments in Poland account for 23% of current spending on health, which is more than in many European Union countries. This implies an incased risk of financial hardship for Polish households. Methods The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which people in Poland experience financial hardship when they use health services. The analysis draws on household budget survey data collected annually by the Central Statistical Office of Poland between 2005 and 2014. It focuses on two indicators of financial protection: catastrophic health spending and impoverishing health spending. The study is a part of WHO country-based studies generating new evidence on financial protection in European health systems. Results In 2014, 8.6% of Polish households experienced catastrophic health spending, while 3.8% of households were impoverished or further impoverished due to health spending. Financial hardship is heavily concentrated among the poorest households for whom the incidence of catastrophic spending is 30%. Outpatient medicines are the largest single driver of catastrophic health spending across all consumption quintiles except the richest. For the richest households, payments for medical products and dental care are the main causes of financial hardship. Although financial protection improved between 2005 and 2014, the improvement among the poorest was marginal. Conclusions Policy attention should focus on protecting households against high spending on outpatient medicines, e.g. revising patient cost-sharing for prescribed medicines and strengthen regulation for over-the-counter medicines. The protection mechanisms should be targeted at low-income households (people living on social benefits, disability or survivor's pensioners). Key messages Financial protection is fairly weak in Poland compared to many European Union countries. Out-of-pocket payments for medicines (prescribed and over-the-counter) are the main cause of financial hardship for Polish households.

Background The transformation of health care systems in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries after the fall of communism resulted in increased household out-of-pocket payments for health and a deterioration of equity in health care. Since then, CEE countries have been struggling to ensure sufficient public resources for health and improve universal health coverage. Methods We evaluated the progress in achieving universal health care coverage made over the last two decades in eight European Union countries (EU-8): Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. A desk research method was applied (2019) to collect and analyze quantitative data on health care expenditure and qualitative data on health care coverage (population coverage, service coverage, patient cost-sharing, and quality of care). Results The results show an increased priority on the part of governments to fund health care in the EU-8 countries. Nevertheless, public resources have not been sufficient to significantly reduce the role of out-of-pocket expenditure. Out-of-pocket payments in the analyzed countries result from the explicit decision to shift costs to households (patient cost-sharing for medicines, excluding dental care) or implicit rationing (long waiting times for specialist services). Despite some common features, there is a great diversity across the EU-8 with some countries (Latvia) marked with significant gaps in health care coverage, and others (Czechia, Slovenia) providing universal health care with relatively low out-of-pocket payments. Conclusions There is room for reducing out-of-pocket payments in the EU-8 through further budget prioritization. A systematic and evidence-based approach to establish a benefit basket and patient cost-sharing obligations might help to improve universal health coverage in these countries. Key messages In the last two decades, the EU-8 countries have made moderate progress in achieving universal health coverage. Despite governments’ increased priority for health, significant gaps in service and cost coverage, as well as quality of care, persist in some EU-8 countries.

Introduction Long-term care (LTC) is organized in a fragmented manner. Payer agencies (PA) receive LTC funds from the agency collecting funds, and commission services. Yet, distributional equity (DE) across PAs, a precondition to geographical equity of access to LTC, has received limited attention. We conceptualize that LTC systems promote DE when they are designed to set eligibility criteria nationally (vs. locally); and to distribute funds among PAs based on needs-formula (vs. past-budgets or government decisions). Objectives This cross-country study highlights to what extent different LTC systems are designed to promote DE across PAs, and the parameters used in allocation formulae. Methods Qualitative data were collected through a questionnaire filled by experts from 17 OECD countries. Results 11 out of 25 LTC systems analyzed, fully meet DE as we defined. 5 systems which give high autonomy to PAs have designs with low levels of DE; while nine systems partially promote DE. Allocation formulae vary in their complexity as some systems use simple demographic parameters while others apply socio-economic status, disability, and LTC cost variations. Discussion and conclusions A minority of LTC systems fully meet DE, which is only one of the criteria in allocation of LTC resources. Some systems prefer local priority-setting and governance over DE. Countries that value DE should harmonize the eligibility criteria at the national level and allocate funds according to needs across regions.

This analysis of the Polish health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. In late 2017, the Polish government committed to increase the share of public expenditures on health to 6% of GDP by 2024. If the GDP continues to grow in the years to come, this will present an opportunity to tackle mounting health challenges such as socioeconomic inequalities in health, high rates of obesity, rising burden of mental disorders and population ageing that put strain on health care resources. It is also an opportunity to tackle certain longstanding imbalances in the health sector, including overreliance on acute hospital care compared with other types of care, including ambulatory care and long-term care; shortages of human resources; the negligible role of health promotion and disease prevention vis-a-vis curative care; and poor financial situation in the hospital sector. Finally, the additional resources are much needed to implement important ongoing reforms, including the reform of primary care. The resources have to be spent wisely and waste should be minimized. The introduction, in 2016, of a special system (IOWISZ) of assessing investments in the health sector that require public financing (including from the EU funds) as well as the work undertaken by the Polish health technology assessment (HTA) agency (AOTMiT), which evaluates health technologies and publicly-financed health policy programmes as well as sets prices of goods and services, should help ensure that these goals are achieved. Recent reforms, such as the ongoing reform of primary care that seeks to improve coordination of care and the introduction of the hospital network, go in the right direction; however, a number of longstanding unresolved problems, such as hospital indebtedness, need to be tackled.

The ageing of populations leads to an increased attention to health promotion among the elderly. The potential of health promotion to delay health deterioration and enable senior citizens to live relatively healthy and independent lives, serves as a base for the EU healthy ageing strategy and consequent European countries’ activities in health promotion and disease prevention.

The presented country profile, based on several national reports, legal acts, international databases, scientific articles and pilot research performed with the use of health care sector templates, outlines the major institutional, organisational and financing challenges for health promotion in Poland, and specifically, health promotion for older adults. Despite the numerous legislative and organisational changes in the health care sector since 1989 and the strengthening of the public health institutions in Poland, the country lacks a long-term, sustainable policy perspective in the public health area. The traditionally higher priority attached to curative care than to public health actions is one of the major reasons for the shortcomings of public health policy and the insufficient resources for health promotion and primary prevention in general, and health promotion for older adults specifically. However, there are also many weaknesses at the organisational level. One of the most important is the weak cooperation between the different levels of territorial self-government, the central government and other institutions when undertaking health promotion actions, which results in the development of both under- and overprovision of health promotion interventions for different population groups and at different geographical locations. Few self-government associations try to improve the cooperation and experience exchange in this field. However there is a need for a greater coordination and information exchange concerning plans and financial possibilities as well as for more competent health educators with better communication skills, less bureaucratic burdens, and better financial conditions.

The health status of the Hungarian population is relatively poor, compared to other countries of similar socio-economic development. Unhealthy diet, smoking, alcohol consumption and low physical activity are important risk factors leading to cardiovascular system diseases – the main cause of death in the general population and among people 65+ in Hungary. Yet, the OECD health statistics indicate that Hungary belongs to a group of countries with the lowest per capita expenditure on prevention and public health and that the level of this expenditure is decreasing. In Hungary, there is no legislation specifically dedicated to public health (Public Health Act) and the matters of public health and health promotion are regulated by various legal documents. The directions for public health policy are set in National Public Health Programmes. To address the problem of the ageing population, in 2009 a National Ageing Strategy (2009–2034) was adopted. The Strategy stresses the need to develop programmes for prevention, rehabilitation and health promotion for older people. The main actor in public health policy is the central government, namely its agency the National Public Health and Medical Officer Service. Also, territorial governments play an important role, though they have limited financial capacity to spend on health promotion and they need to rely on external unstable sources of funds when implementing health programmes for older people. NGOs might be important partners for health promotion along with public authorities. However, they require more financial and infrastructural support to be able to perform more activities in the field of health promotion for older people.

The increased interest in patient cost-sharing as a measure for sustainable health care financing calls for evidence to support the development of effective patient payment policies. In this paper, we present an application of a stated willingness-to-pay technique, i.e. contingent valuation method, to investigate the consumer's willingness and ability to pay for publicly financed health care services, specifically hospitalisations and consultations with specialists. Contingent valuation data were collected in nationally representative population-based surveys conducted in 2010 in six Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Ukraine) using an identical survey methodology. The results indicate that the majority of health care consumers in the six CEE countries are willing to pay an official fee for publicly financed health care services that are of good quality and quick access. The consumers' willingness to pay is limited by the lack of financial ability to pay for services, and to a lesser extent by objection to pay. Significant differences across the six countries are observed, though. The results illustrate that the contingent valuation method can provide decision-makers with a broad range of information to facilitate cost-sharing policies. Nevertheless, the intrinsic limitations of the method (i.e. its hypothetical nature) and the context of CEE countries call for caution when applying its results. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: Health promotion interventions for older adults are important as they can decrease the onset and evolution of diseases and thus can reduce the medical costs related to those diseases. However, there is no comparative evidence on how those interventions are funded in European countries. The aim of this study is to explore the funding of health promotion interventions in general and health promotion interventions for older adults in particular in European countries.METHOD: We use desk research to identify relevant sources of information such as official national documents, international databases and scientific articles. Fora descriptive overview on how health promotion is funded, we focus on three dimensions: who is funding health promotion, what are the contribution mechanisms and who are the collecting agents. In addition to general information on funding of health promotion, we explore how programs on health promotion for older population groups are funded.RESULTS: There is a great diversity in funding of health promotion in European countries. Although public sources (tax and social health insurance revenues) are still most often used, other mechanisms of funding such as private donations or European funds are also common. Furthermore, there is no clear pattern in the funding of health promotion for different population groups. This is of particular importance for health promotion for older adults where information is limited across European countries.CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an overview of funding of health promotion interventions in European countries. The main obstacles for funding health promotion interventions are lack of information and the fragmentation in the funding of health promotion interventions for older adults.

Background The use of e-health and m-health technologies in health promotion and primary prevention among older people is largely unexplored. This study provides a systematic review of the evidence on the scope of the use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults (age 50+). Methods A systematic literature review was conducted in October 2015. The search for relevant publications was done in the search engine PubMed. The key inclusion criteria were: e-health and m-health tools used, participants’ age 50+ years, focus on health promotion and primary prevention, published in the past 10 years, in English, and full-paper can be obtained. The text of the publications was analyzed based on two themes: the characteristics of e-health and m-health tools and the determinants of the use of these tools by older adults. The quality of the studies reviewed was also assessed. Results The initial search resulted in 656 publications. After we applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 45 publications were selected for the review. In the publications reviewed, various types of e-health/m-health tools were described, namely apps, websites, devices, video consults and webinars. Most of the publications (60 %) reported studies in the US. In 37 % of the publications, the study population was older adults in general, while the rest of the publications studied a specific group of older adults (e.g. women or those with overweight). The publications indicated various facilitators and barriers. The most commonly mentioned facilitator was the support for the use of the e-health/m-health tools that the older adults received. Conclusions E-health and m-health tools are used by older adults in diverse health promotion programs, but also outside formal programs to monitor and improve their health. The latter is hardly studied. The successful use of e-health/m-health tools in health promotion programs for older adults greatly depends on the older adults’ motivation and support that older adults receive when using e-health and m-health tools. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1522-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background To motivate people to lead a healthier life and to engage in disease prevention, explicit financial incentives, such as monetary rewards for attaining health-related targets (e.g. smoking cessation, weight loss or increased physical activity) or disincentives for reverting to unhealthy habits, are applied. A review focused on financial incentives for health promotion among older people is lacking. Attention to this group is necessary because older people may respond differently to financial incentives, e.g. because of differences in opportunity costs and health perceptions. To outline how explicit financial incentives for healthy lifestyle and disease prevention work among older persons, this study reviews the recent evidence on this topic. Methods We applied the method of systematic literature review and we searched in PUBMED, ECONLIT and COCHRANE LIBRARY for studies focused on explicit financial incentives targeted at older adults to promote health and stimulate primary prevention as well as screening. The publications selected as relevant were analyzed based on directed (relational) content analysis. The results are presented in a narrative manner complemented with an appendix table that describes the study details. We assessed the design of the studies reported in the publications in a qualitative manner. We also checked the quality of our review using the PRISMA 2009 checklist. Results We identified 15 studies on the role of explicit financial incentives in changing health-related behavior of older people. They include both, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of financial rewards as well as qualitative studies on the acceptability of financial incentives. The quantitative studies are characterized by a great diversity of designs and provide mixed results on the effects of explicit financial incentives. The results of the qualitative studies indicate limited trust of older people in the use of explicit financial incentives for health promotion and prevention. Conclusions More research is needed on the effects of explicit financial incentives for prevention and promotion among older people before their broader use can be recommended. Overall, the design of the financial incentive system may be a crucial element in their acceptability. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1517-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The lack of systematic research on the assessment of patient payment policies emphasizes the need to evaluate the mechanisms of official patient charges. This paper aims to contribute to this research area by outlining a comprehensive framework for the assessment of patient payment policies, and by validating it on data for six CEE countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Ukraine). Three broad groups of assessment criteria are included in the framework: policy context, policy content and policy effects. Within each of these groups, several sub-groups of criteria are defined. Our application of the assessment framework to the six CEE countries shows its relevance for the comparison of patient payment policy across countries, and for outlining common policy options. At the same time, it also reveals the need of collecting data on other relevant indicators that are not included in this paper, as well as for updating indicators already included. Research on patient payments will be essential for a continuous monitoring of patient payment policies (e.g. those in CEE) and their prompt adjustment.

In Poland, the low level of health care financing from public funds is becoming increasingly voiced and accepted as an argument not only for increasing health insurance contributions, but also for extending the scope of private funding. The objective of this paper is to analyze the level and structure of out-of-pocket expenditure in Poland as well as health care consumer characteristics influencing payments for health care and willingness to pay. The analysis relies on two main sources of micro data: the household budget surveys of the Central Statistical Office of Poland and a representative survey carried out in Poland in 2010. The results indicate that in the structure of out-of-pocket expenditure, spending on pharmaceuticals dominates (up to 80% of total out-of-pocket expenditure on health). The out-of-pocket expenditure on services most often refers to paying for out-patient specialists’ services, rehabilitation services and dental care, often in the private sector. Out-of-pocket expenditures are highest among population groups with high health needs (elderly, disabled, chronically ill) but also among individuals with high income. Polish consumers do not object to co-payments for health services with good quality and quick access. Greater stated willingness to pay characterizes younger people, those with higher income and better health.

Background: During the past decades, many governments have introduced patient cost-sharing in their public health-care system. This trend in health-care reforms affected the European Union (EU) member states as well. This article presents a review of patient cost-sharing for health-care services in the 27 EU countries, and discusses directions for their improvement. Methods: Data are collected based on a review of international data bases, national laws and regulations, as well as scientific and policy reports. The analysis presents a combination of qualitative and quantitative research techniques. Results: Patient cost-sharing arrangements in the EU have been changing considerably over the past two decades (mostly being extended) and are quite diverse at present. There is a relation between patient cost-sharing arrangements and some characteristics of the health-care system in a country. In a few EU countries, a mix of formal and informal charges exists, which creates a double financial burden for health-care consumers. Conclusions: The adequacy of patient cost-sharing arrangements in EU countries needs to be reconsidered. Most importantly, it is essential to deal with informal patient payments (where applicable) and to assure adequate exemption mechanisms to diminish the adverse equity effects of patient cost-sharing. A close communication with the public is needed to clarify the objectives and content of a patient payment policy in a country.

Background: Out-of-pocket payments for health services constitute a major financial burden for patients in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. Individuals who are unable to pay use different coping strategies (e.g. borrowing money or foregoing service utilization), which can have negative consequences on their health and social welfare. This article explores patients’ inability to pay for outpatient and hospital services in six CEE countries: Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Ukraine. Methods: The analysis is based on quantitative data collected in 2010 in nationally representative surveys. Two indicators of inability to pay were considered: the need to borrow money or sell assets and foregoing service utilization. Statistical analyses were applied to investigate associations between the indicators of inability to pay and individual characteristics. Results: Patient payments are most common in Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania and Lithuania and often include informal payments. Romanian and, particularly, Ukrainian patients most often face difficulties to pay for health services (with approximately 40% of Ukrainian payers borrowing money or selling assets to cover hospital payments and approximately 60% of respondents who need care foregoing services). Inability to pay mainly affects those with poor health and low incomes. Conclusion: Widespread patient payments constitute a major financial barrier to health service use in CEE. There is a need to formalize them where they are informal and to take measures to protect vulnerable population groups, especially those with limited possibilities to deal with payment difficulties.

Cost-sharing for health care is high on the policy agenda in many European countries that struggle with deficits in their public budget. However, such policy often meets with public opposition, which might delay or even prevent its implementation. Increased reliance on patient payments may also have adverse equity effects, especially in countries where informal patient payments are widespread. The factors which might influence the presence of both, formal and informal payments can be found in economic, governance and cultural differences between countries. The aim of this paper is to review the formal-informal payment mix in Europe and to outline factors associated with this mix. We use quantitative analyses of macro-data for 35 European countries and a qualitative description of selected country experiences. The results suggest that the presence of obligatory cost-sharing for health care services is associated with governance factors, while informal patient payments are a multi-cause phenomenon. A consensus-based policy, supported by evidence and stakeholders' engagement, might contribute to a more sustainable patient payment policy. In some European countries, the implementation of cost-sharing requires policy actions to reduce other patient payment obligations, including measures to eliminate informal payments. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background Although patient charges for health-care services may contribute to a more sustainable health-care financing, they often raise public opposition, which impedes their introduction. Thus, a consensus among the main stakeholders on the presence and role of patient charges should be worked out to assure their successful implementation. Aim To analyse the acceptability of formal patient charges for health-care services in a basic package among different health-care system stakeholders in six Central and Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Ukraine). Methods Qualitative data were collected in 2009 via focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with health-care consumers, providers, policy makers and insurers. The same participants were asked to fill in a self-administrative questionnaire. Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed separately to outline similarities and differences in the opinions between the stakeholder groups and across countries. Results There is a rather weak consensus on patient charges in the countries. Health policy makers and insurers strongly advocate patient charges. Health-care providers overall support charges but their financial profits from the system strongly affects their approval. Consumers are against paying for services, mostly due to poor quality and access to health-care services and inability to pay. Conclusions To build consensus on patient charges, the payment policy should be responsive to consumers' needs with regard to quality and equity. Transparency and accountability in the health-care system should be improved to enhance public trust and acceptance of patient payments.