Suchergebnisse

European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are a major source of investments in the newer EU member states. In Lithuania's health sector, the amount for the 2007-2013 funding period reached more than €400 million. In this paper we aim to (i) identify the key areas in the health sector which were supported by ESIF, (ii) determine the extent to which ESIF assisted the implementation of the ongoing health system reform; and (iii) assess whether the use of funds has led to expected improvements in healthcare. We review the national strategic documents and legislation, and perform calculations to determine funding allocations by specific area, based on the available data. We analyse changes according to a set of selected indicators. We find that implementation of programmes funded by the ESIF lacks formal evaluation. Existing evidence suggests that some improvement has been achieved by 2013. However, there are persisting challenges, including failure to reach a broad agreement on selection of health and healthcare indicators, lack of transparency in allocations, and absence of coherent assessment measures of healthcare quality and accessibility.

This paper analyzes patterns of tips, gifts and bribes paid by patients for health care services. Informal payments are more prevalent in developing and transition countries because the economic and socio-cultural environment is more conducive to "gifts"-exchange as a means to maintain the underfunded health care system. Moreover, most Eastern European countries have experienced wider socio-political reforms, which have also affected health care service provision and have led to a greater reliance on informal patient payments in the access and quality assurance of health care services. This study provides evidence on public attitudes and recent experiences with informal patient payments in post-Soviet and post-communist countries, namely in Lithuania, Ukraine and Poland. The empirical results suggest a lower share of informal patient payments as well as a prevalence of more negative attitudes towards informal patient payments in Poland compared to Lithuania and Ukraine. Informal payments are more common and more expensive for in-patient health care services in contrast to out-patient ones in all countries. Still, in post-Soviet Lithuania and Ukraine informal patient payments co-exist with other types of patient payments such as quasi-formal patient payments. When clear regulation of the basic package and formal patient charges is lacking, patients experience a mixture of payment obligations. About three quarters of the respondents support the statement that informal patient payments should be eradicated. It is proposed therefore that governments of the countries should meet public expectations and implement a strategy to deal with informal patient payments. In all three countries, informal patient payments (both "bribes and fees") are a symptom of system failure and provide a means for patients to obtain the health care they desire, which the government is not able to guarantee. Suitable regulations coupled with (dis)incentives may decrease the level of informal payments for health care provision.

The impact of digitalization of health services has been profound and is expected to be even more profound in the future. It is important to evaluate whether digital health services contribute to health system goals in an optimal way. This should be done at the level of the service, not the 'digital transformation'. Decisions to adopt new digital health services, at different levels of the health care system, are ideally based on evidence regarding their performance in light of health system goals. In order to evaluate this, a broad perspective should be taken in evaluations of digital health services. Attainment of the broad health system goals, including quality, efficiency and equity, are objectives against which to judge new digital health services. These goals in a broad sense are unaltered by the process of digitalization. Governance should be designed and tailored in such a way to capture all relevant changes in an adequate way. When evaluating digital health services many specific aspects need to be considered. Like for other innovations and (new) technologies, such promises may or may not materialize and potential benefits may also be accompanied by unintended and/or negative (side) effects in the short or long term. Hence, the introduction, implementation, use and funding of digital health technologies should be carefully evaluated and monitored. Governments should play a more active role in the further optimization both of the process of decision making (both at the central and decentral level) and the related outcomes. They need to find a balance between centralized and decentralized activity. Moreover, the broader preparation of the health care system to be able to deal with digitalization, from education, through financial and regulatory preconditions, to implementation of monitoring systems to monitor its effects on health system performance remains important.

The impact of digitalization of health services has been profound and is expected to be even more profound in the future. It is important to evaluate whether digital health services contribute to health system goals in an optimal way. This should be done at the level of the service, not the 'digital transformation'. Decisions to adopt new digital health services, at different levels of the health care system, are ideally based on evidence regarding their performance in light of health system goals. In order to evaluate this, a broad perspective should be taken in evaluations of digital health services. Attainment of the broad health system goals, including quality, efficiency and equity, are objectives against which to judge new digital health services. These goals in a broad sense are unaltered by the process of digitalization. Governance should be designed and tailored in such a way to capture all relevant changes in an adequate way. When evaluating digital health services many specific aspects need to be considered. Like for other innovations and (new) technologies, such promises may or may not materialize and potential benefits may also be accompanied by unintended and/or negative (side) effects in the short or long term. Hence, the introduction, implementation, use and funding of digital health technologies should be carefully evaluated and monitored. Governments should play a more active role in the further optimization both of the process of decision making (both at the central and decentral level) and the related outcomes. They need to find a balance between centralized and decentralized activity. Moreover, the broader preparation of the health care system to be able to deal with digitalization, from education, through financial and regulatory preconditions, to implementation of monitoring systems to monitor its effects on health system performance remains important.

Emerging literature is highlighting the huge toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline health workers. However, prior to the crisis, the wellbeing of this group was already of concern. The aim of this paper is to describe the frequency of distress and wellbeing, measured by the expanded 9-item Mayo Clinic Wellbeing Index (eWBI), among general practitioners/family physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify levers to mitigate the risk of distress. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among GP practices. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software using Version 7 of the database, which consisted of the cleaned data of 33 countries available as of 3 November 2021. Data from 3711 respondents were included. eWBI scores ranged from -2 to 9, with a median of 3. Using a cutoff of ≥2, 64.5% of respondents were considered at risk of distress. GPs with less experience, in smaller practices, and with more vulnerable patient populations were at a higher risk of distress. Significant differences in wellbeing scores were noted between countries. Collaboration from other practices and perception of having adequate governmental support were significant protective factors for distress. It is necessary to address practice- and system-level organizational factors in order to enhance wellbeing and support primary care physicians.

Emerging literature is highlighting the huge toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline health workers. However, prior to the crisis, the wellbeing of this group was already of concern. The aim of this paper is to describe the frequency of distress and wellbeing, measured by the expanded 9-item Mayo Clinic Wellbeing Index (eWBI), among general practitioners/family physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify levers to mitigate the risk of distress. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among GP practices. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software using Version 7 of the database, which consisted of the cleaned data of 33 countries available as of 3 November 2021. Data from 3711 respondents were included. eWBI scores ranged from -2 to 9, with a median of 3. Using a cutoff of ≥2, 64.5% of respondents were considered at risk of distress. GPs with less experience, in smaller practices, and with more vulnerable patient populations were at a higher risk of distress. Significant differences in wellbeing scores were noted between countries. Collaboration from other practices and perception of having adequate governmental support were significant protective factors for distress. It is necessary to address practice- and system-level organizational factors in order to enhance wellbeing and support primary care physicians.

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.

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.