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.)

Countries with social health insurance (SHI) systems display some common defining characteristics - pluralism of actors and strong medical associations - that, in dealing with crisis times, may allow for common learnings. This paper analyses health system responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in eight countries representative of SHI systems in Europe (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Switzerland). Data collection and analysis builds on the methodology and content in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) up to November 2020. We find that SHI funds were, in general, neither foreseen as major stakeholders in crisis management, nor were they represented in crisis management teams. Further, responsibilities in some countries shifted from SHI funds to federal governments. The overall organisation and governance of SHI systems shaped how countries responded to the challenges of the pandemic. For instance, coordinated ambulatory care often helped avoid overburdening hospitals. Decentralisation among local authorities may however represent challenges with the coordination of policies, i.e. coordination costs. At the same time, bottom-up self-organisation of ambulatory care providers is supported by decentralised structures. Providers also increasingly used teleconsultations, which may remain part of standard practice. It is recommended to involve SHI funds actively in crisis management and in preparing for future crisis to increase health system resilience., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Oral health, coupled with rising awareness on the impact that limited dental care coverage has on oral health and general health and well-being, has received increased attention over the past few years. The purpose of the study was to compare the statutory coverage and access to dental care for adult services in 11 European countries using a vignette approach., Methods: We used three patient vignettes to highlight the differences of the dimensions of coverage and access to dental care (coverage, cost-sharing and accessibility). The three vignettes describe typical care pathways for patients with the most common oral health conditions (caries, periodontal disease, edentulism). The vignettes were completed by health services researchers knowledgeable on dental care, dentists, or teams consisting of a health systems expert working together with dental specialists., Results: Completed vignettes were received from 11 countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Republic of Ireland (Ireland), Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden. While emergency dental care, tooth extraction and restorative care for acute pain due to carious lesions are covered in most responding countries, root canal treatment, periodontal care and prosthetic restoration often require cost-sharing or are entirely excluded from the benefit basket. Regular dental visits are also limited to one visit per year in many countries. Beyond financial barriers due to out-of-pocket payments, patients may experience very different physical barriers to accessing dental care. The limited availability of contracted dentists (especially in rural areas) and the unequal distribution and lack of specialised dentists are major access barriers to public dental care., Conclusions: According to the results, statutory coverage of dental care varies across European countries, while access barriers are largely similar. Many dental services require substantial cost-sharing in most countries, leading to high out-of-pocket spending. Socioeconomic status is thus a main determinant for access to dental care, but other factors such as geography, age and comorbidities can also inhibit access and affect outcomes. Moreover, coverage in most oral health systems is targeted at treatment and less at preventative oral health care., (© 2022. The Author(s).)