BackgroundEuropean societies are ageing rapidly and thus health promotion for older people (HP4OP) is becoming an increasingly relevant issue. Crucial here is not only the clinical aspect of health promotion but also its organisational and institutional dimension. The latter has been relatively neglected in research on HP4OP. This issue is addressed in this study, constituting a part of the EU project ProHealth65+, engaging ten member countries. This paper is based on two intertwining research goals: (1) exploring which institutions/organisations are performing HP4OP activities in selected European countries (including sectors involved, performed roles of these institutions, organisation of those activities); (2) developing an institutional approach to HP4OP. Thus, the paper provides a description of the analytical tools for further research in this area.MethodsThe mentioned aims were addressed through the mutual use of two complementary methods: (a) a literature review of scientific and grey literature; and (b) questionnaire survey with selected expert respondents from 10 European countries. The expert respondents, selected by the project’s collaborating partners, were asked to fill in a custom designed questionnaire concerning HP4OP institutional aspects.ResultsThe literature review provided an overview of the organisational arrangements in different HP4OP initiatives. It also enabled the development of functional institutional definitions of health promotion, health promotion activities and interventions, as well as an institutional definition adequate to the health promotion context. The distinctions between sectors were also clarified. The elaborated questionnaires provided in-depth information on countries specifically indicating the key sectors involved in HP4OP in those selected countries. These are: health care, regional/local authorities, NGO’s/voluntary institutions. The questionnaire and literature review both resulted in the indication of a significant level of cross-sectorial cooperation in HP4OP.ConclusionsThe inclusion of the institutional analysis within the study of HP4OP provides a valuable opportunity to analyse, in a systematic way, good practices in this respect, also in terms of institutional arrangements. A failure to address this aspect in policymaking might potentially cause organisational failure even in evidence-based programmes. This paper frames the perception of this problem.

The Act of 12 May 2011 on the Reimbursement of Medicines, Foodstuffs Intended for Particular Nutritional Uses and Medical Devices constitutes a major change of the reimbursement policy in Poland. The main aims of this Act were to rationalize the reimbursement policy and to reduce spending on reimbursed drugs. The Act seems to have met these goals: reimbursement policy (including pricing of reimbursed drugs) was overhauled and the expenditure of the National Health Fund on reimbursed drugs saw a significant decrease in the year following the Act's introduction. The annual savings achieved since then (mainly due to the introduction of risk sharing schemes), have made it possible to include new drugs into the reimbursement list and improve access to innovative drugs. However, at the same time, the decrease in prices of reimbursed drugs, that the Act brought about, led to an uncontrolled outflow of some of these drugs abroad and shortages in Poland. This paper analyses the main changes introduced by the Reimbursement Act and their implications. Since the Act came into force relatively recently, its full impact on the reimbursement policy is not yet possible to assess.

In October 2014, after over 12 months of delay, Poland finally implemented directive 2011/24/EU on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare. The implementing legislation in the area of cost reimbursement and prior authorization is very restrictive. The goal is to either defer the public payer's expenses into the future or to discourage patients from seeking care abroad or from seeking care altogether. The Polish government and the Ministry of Health, the key stakeholders in the implementation process, seemed to overlook the potential monetary benefits that the implementation of the directive could bring, for example, by promoting Poland as a destination for health tourism. Other stakeholders, such as patients and healthcare providers, had no real influence on the policy process. So far, the number of applications for planned treatment abroad has been very low and the majority of them were actually turned down as they did not meet the formal requirements. This number is likely to remain low in the future as accessing such care is cumbersome and not affordable for many patients. Overall, while the directive does not aim to encourage patients to seek cross-border healthcare, the current national regulations in Poland do not seem to facilitate access to cross-border healthcare, which is the main goal of the directive.

The waiting lists package, proposed in March 2014, is the first attempt to create a national strategy to reduce waiting times for specialist care in Poland. The policy proposes a number of measures directed at primary, specialist ambulatory and hospital care with the goal of shifting patients to the lowest possible level of care. Initially, it has been welcomed by the patients and there has been, so far, no strong opposition against the reform from other stakeholders. However, this may be because there is some disbelief that the policy would actually be implemented (due to limited funding available for its implementation) and because some of the proposed changes are vague and have yet to be clarified. One stakeholder group that may obstruct the implementation of the reform, if they are not satisfied with the final shape of the proposed measures, is the primary care doctors. They are directly affected by the reform and enjoy a relatively strong bargaining position compared to other groups of medical professionals. Thus, the future of the reform remains uncertain.

Between 2006 and 2015, the Act on the State Emergency Medical System was the key act governing the organization, financing and provision of emergency care in Poland. From the moment it entered into force, it had been heavily criticized. The critique focused, among others, on the lack of provisions allowing for emergency medical services (EMS) to be performed outside the EMS units, the lack of a separate Act regulating the profession of a medical rescuer and the lack of a separate professional organization representing medical rescuers. As early as 2008 a team of specialists was set up to work on amending the Act and these works resulted in the draft Act on the State Emergency Medical System that was submitted to public consultations on 19 August, 2014. This draft was further reworked in 2015 and was signed by the President on 25 September of the same year. The Act addressed some of the shortcomings of the EMS legislation that was previously in place. However, the new Act did not meet the key demands of medical rescuers; namely, it did not introduce a separate legal act regulating this profession nor established a professional organisation representing their interests. An analysis of the vested interests of various groups of medical professionals indicates that these interests are likely to have influenced the final legislative outcome. The Act, as well as its implementing executive regulation from April 2016, may reduce support of certain medical professional groups during the Act's implementation as well as create tensions between these groups, especially between medical rescuers and nurses.