Search

The importance of day surgery as a less costly alternative compared to conventional inpatient hospital stays is growing internationally. The rate of day surgery activities has increased across Europe. However, this trend has been heterogeneous across countries, and might still be below its potential. Since payment systems affect how providers offer care, they represent a policy instrument to further increase the rate of day surgeries. In this paper, we review international strategies to promote day surgery with a particular focus on payment models for 13 OECD countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland). We conduct a cross-country comparison based on an email survey of health policy experts and a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed papers and grey literature. Our research shows that all countries aim to strengthen day surgery activity to increase health system efficiency. Several countries used financial and non-financial policy measures to overcome misaligned incentive structures and promote day surgery activity. Financial incentives for day surgery can serve as a policy instrument to promote change. We recommend embedding these incentives in a comprehensive approach of restructuring health systems. In addition, we encourage countries to monitor and evaluate the effect of changes to payment systems on day surgeries to allow for more informed decision-making., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interest AK, HE, and RB report grants from the Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the federal state of Berlin, and the German Federal Joint Committee during the conduct of the study. RB reports grants from the World Health Organization, and grants and other funding from the Federal Ministry of Health. The submitted work is independent from these relationships. RM has nothing to declare. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD or of its member countries., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: The digitalisation of the German healthcare system enables a wide range of opportunities to utilize healthcare data. The implementation of the EHR in January 2021 was a significant step, but compared to other European countries, the implementation of the EHR in the German healthcare system is still at an early stage. The aim of this paper is to characterise the structural factors relating to the adoption of the EHR in more detail from the perspective of representatives of stakeholders working in the German healthcare system and to identify existing barriers to implementation and the need for change. Methods: Qualitative expert interviews were conducted with one representative from each of the stakeholder groups health insurance, pharmacies, healthcare research, EHR development and panel doctors. Results: The interviews with the various stakeholders revealed that the implementation process of the EHR is being delayed by a lack of a viable basis for decision-making, existing conflicts of interest and insufficient consideration of the needs of patients and service providers, among other things. Discussion: The current status of EHR implementation is due to deficiency in legal regulations as well as structural problems and the timing of the introduction. For instance, the access rights of various stakeholders to the EHR data and the procedure in the event of a technical failure of the telematics infrastructure are remain unclear. In addition, insufficient information and communication measures have not led to the desired acceptance of EHR use among patients and service providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID‐19 pandemic, national triage guidelines were developed to address the anticipated shortage of life‐saving resources, should ICU capacities be overloaded. Rationing and triage imply that in addition to individual patient interests, interests of population health have to be integrated. The transfer of theoretical and empirical knowledge into feasible and useful practice models and their implementation in clinical settings need to be improved. This paper analyzes how triage protocols could translate abstract theories of distributive justice into concrete material and procedural criteria for rationing intensive care resources during a pandemic. We reconstruct the development and implementation of a rationing protocol at a German university hospital: describing the ethical challenge of triage, clarifying the aspirational norms, and summarizing specific norms of fair triage and allocation for developing an institutional policy and practice model and implementing it. We reflect on how critical topics are seen by clinicians and what helped manage the perceived burdens of the triage dilemma. We analyze what can be learned from this debate regarding the difficult issues around triage protocols and their potential implementation into clinical settings. Analyzing the ought‐to‐is gap of triage, integrating abstract ethical principles into practical concepts, and evaluating those should clarify the benefits and risks of different allocation options. We seek to inform debates on triage concepts and policies to ensure the best possible treatment and fair allocation of resources as well as to help protect patients and professionals in worst‐case scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The goal of this paper is to analyze the COVID-19 policies of 10 European countries, including Sweden, Finland, Norway, Italy, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Hungary, with a time-series policy analysis tool. Subject and methods: The results of the COVID-19 policy analysis are based on a single time-series indicator, or daily population mortality rate: the number of COVID-19 daily cumulative deaths divided by the population in millions. The lower the score, the better the policy. Although many experts believe that the COVID-19 policy outcome analysis is premature, time series analysis is an excellent analysis that can provide information on the progress and transition of policy outcomes. In other words, the proposed time series analysis tool allows policymakers to identify and quantify when mistakes were made during the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. Results: The COVID-19 policy analysis discovered many useful facts. Sweden failed due to the herd immunity approach. Hungary made a fundamental mistake in COVID-19 tactics. Countries such as Sweden, Hungary, Belgium, and Poland showed time-series changes that differed from the others. Conclusion: Public health interventions can play a key role in mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposed policy analysis tool, hiscovid demonstrated the effectiveness of the time-series score behavior for discovering when policymakers made mistakes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Childcare policy responses towards Covid-19 differed in European welfare states. • Policy responses cause informalization of childcare to different degrees. • Informalization of childcare is mainly connected with social risks for women. • Cultural and institutional differences help to understand varying policy responses. The closure of extra-familial childcare facilities by European governments in 2020 was an important part of interventions against the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. One consequence was that childcare was provided by parents at home, mainly by women. As a result, women mainly experienced financial and employment risks related to this "informalization" of childcare. The childcare policies of European welfare states differ in the extent to which they include measures to reduce the social risks related to informalization. Against this backdrop, this paper asks: How should one understand cross-national differences in childcare policies during the pandemic? We are also particularly interested in the effects of childcare policies on the social risks connected with the informalization of childcare and what these mean for the gendered division of paid work and care. Differences in childcare policies during the pandemic are commonly explained in terms of the path dependence of such policies. Using the theoretical approach of "care arrangement," this article introduces a broader theoretical framework that considers the role of cultural and institutional factors for understanding the cross-national differences in childcare policies during the pandemic. We introduce the findings of a comparative empirical study of childcare policies in three European welfare states—Denmark, Germany and England—that represent different types of care arrangements. This paper uses policy and media documents, quantitative data on childcare and women's employment, cultural ideas and secondary analysis of empirical studies. We find that governments did not per se respond to the pandemic based on institutional path dependence regarding childcare policies, while the integration of culture into the theoretical framework allows for a more comprehensive understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, immunization programmes struggled to reach all population groups equally. While migrant groups face multiple barriers to health systems, including vaccination, little is known about their vaccine uptake. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey on adults with and without migration history in Germany to investigate barriers and drivers to COVID-19 vaccination (11 April 2021 to 18 December 2021). Interviews were conducted in six languages. We used logistic regression models and a mediation model to analyze the association between migration history and vaccine uptake. Furthermore, we determined the effect of psychological determinants (5C model) on vaccine uptake. Results The survey comprised 2039 individuals, including 1015 with migration history. Of these, 448 were interviews conducted in languages other than German. Individuals with migration history had a significantly lower vaccine uptake but, while still unvaccinated, had a higher intention to get vaccinated (P  = 0.015) compared with those without migration history. The association between migration history and vaccine uptake was no longer significant when other factors were included in the regression model (odds ratio = 0.9; 95% confidence interval: 0.57–1.47). Socio-economic index, language skills and discrimination experience fully mediated this association. Among the psychological determinants, 'higher confidence' and 'higher collective responsibility' increased the chance of individuals with migration history to be vaccinated. Conclusion Migration history alone cannot explain vaccine uptake; socio-economic index, language skills and discrimination experiences need to be considered. To achieve vaccine equity, future public health policy should aim to reduce relevant barriers through tailored interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The choice of a hospital should be based on individual need and accessibility. For maternity hospitals, this includes known or expected risk factors, the geographic accessibility and level of care provided by the hospital. This study aims to identify factors influencing hospital choice with the aim to analyze if and how many deliveries are conducted in a risk-appropriate and accessible setting in Bavaria, Germany. Methods: This is a cross-sectional secondary data analysis based on all first births in Bavaria (2015-18) provided by the Bavarian Quality Assurance Institute for Medical Care. Information on the mother and on the hospital were included. The Bavarian Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 was used to account for area-level socioeconomic differences. Multiple logistic regression models were used to estimate the strength of association of the predicting factors and to adjust for confounding. Results: We included 195,087 births. Distances to perinatal centers were longer than to other hospitals (16 km vs. 12 km). 10% of women with documented risk pregnancies did not deliver in a perinatal center. Regressions showed that higher age (OR 1.03; 1.02–1.03 95%-CI) and risk pregnancy (OR 1.44; 1.41–1.47 95%-CI) were associated with choosing a perinatal center. The distances travelled show high regional variation with a strong urban-rural divide. Conclusion: In a health system with free choice of hospitals, many women chose a hospital close to home and/or according to their risks. However, this is not the case for 10% of mothers, a group that would benefit from more coordinated care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The investigation goal is the analysis of the relation between healthcare expenditures and other resources, and COVID-19 fatality rates among European countries to design effective health policies for crisis management. Design/methodology/approach: Research methodology is based on descriptive statistics and various parametric methods, also including a linear model of regression to analyze basic relationships of variables under study. Findings: Results show that a lower COVID-19 fatality rate is associated with higher levels of health expenditure (% GDP), of healthcare expenditure per capita, health expenditure in preventive care (% GDP), hospitals per million inhabitants, physicians, nurses, hospital beds and curative acute care beds per 1,000 inhabitants. Regression analysis shows that a 1% increase in healthcare expenditures per capita of countries, it reduces the level of COVID-19 fatality rate by 0.74%. In fact, many countries in Eastern Europe with low healthcare expenditures per capita in 2019 (e.g., Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Latvia, Slovakia, Lithuania, etc.), they have experienced high COVID-19 fatality rates. Instead, a lot of countries in Western Europe, with high healthcare expenditures per capita, such as Germany, Denmark, Austria, and the Netherlands, they had resilient health systems to face pandemic crisis and lower COVID-19 fatality rates. Practical implications: These findings suggest strategies of systematic and continuous investments in healthcare, medical technologies, and ICT infrastructures to support effective health policy of crisis management in countries to face future pandemic crisis and other emergencies in society. Originality/value: The explanation of critical role of high health expenditure (% GDP) and healthcare expenditure per capita to support robust health systems that bolster the resilience in nations to face health emergencies and worldwide crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the Coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) vaccine policies disparities and effectiveness in Germany, Denmark and Bulgaria, with a view to providing lessons for global vaccination and response to possible outbreak risks. Methods: This study analyzed big data through public information on the official websites of the Ministries of Health of the European Union, Germany, Denmark and Bulgaria and the official websites of the World Health Organization. We systematically summarized the COVID-19 vaccine policies of the three countries, and selected the following six indicators for cross-cutting vaccination comparisons: COVID-19 vaccine doses administered per 100 people, COVID-19 vaccination rate, the share of people with fully vaccinated, the share of people only partly vaccinated, cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases per million, cumulative confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million. Meanwhile, we selected the following four indicators for measuring the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine policy implementation: daily cases per million, daily deaths per million, the effective reproduction rate (Rt), the moving-average case fatality rate (CFR). Results: Although these three EU countries had the same start time for vaccination, and the COVID-19 vaccine supply was coordinated by the EU, there are still differences in vaccination priorities, vaccination types, and vaccine appointment methods. Compared to Germany and Denmark, Bulgaria had the least efficient vaccination efforts and the worst vaccination coverage, with a vaccination rate of just over 30% as of June 2023, and the maximum daily deaths per million since vaccination began in the country was more than three times that of the other two countries. From the perspective of implementation effect, vaccination has a certain effect on reducing infection rate and death rate, but the spread of new mutant strains obviously aggravates the severity of the epidemic and reduces the effectiveness of the vaccine. Among them, the spread of the Omicron mutant strain had the most serious impact on the three countries, showing an obvious epidemic peak. Conclusions: Expanding vaccination coverage has played a positive role in reducing COVID-19 infection and mortality rates and stabilizing Rt. Priority vaccination strategies targeting older people and at-risk groups have been shown to be effective in reducing COVID-19 case severity and mortality in the population. However, the emergence and spread of new variant strains, and the relaxation of epidemic prevention policies, still led to multiple outbreaks peaking. In addition, vaccine hesitancy, mistrust in government and ill-prepared health systems are hampering vaccination efforts. Among the notable ones are divergent types of responses to vaccine safety issue could fuel mistrust and hesitancy around vaccination. At this stage, it is also necessary to continue to include COVID-19 vaccination in priority vaccination plans and promote booster vaccination to prevent severe illness and death. Improving the fairness of vaccine distribution and reducing the degree of vaccine hesitancy are the focus of future vaccination work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]