No abstract

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.

Background Health workers have been at the forefront of treating and caring for patients with COVID-19. They were often under immense pressure to care for severely ill patients with a new disease, under strict hygiene conditions and with lockdown measures creating practical barriers to working. This study aims to explore the range of mental health, financial and other practical support measures that 36 countries in Europe and Canada have put in place to support health workers and enable them to do their job. Methods We use data extracted from the COVID-19 Health Systems Response Monitor (HSRM). We only consider initiatives implemented outside of clinical settings where COVID-19 patients are treated, and therefore exclude workplace provisions such as availability of personal protective equipment, working time limits or mandatory rest periods. Results We show that countries have implemented a range of measures, ranging from mental health and well-being support initiatives, to providing bonuses and temporary salary increases. Practical measures such as childcare provision and free transport and accommodation have also been implemented to ensure health workers can get to their workplace and have their children looked after. Other initiatives such as offering continuing professional development credits for knowledge learnt during the crisis were also offered in some countries, albeit less frequently. Conclusions While a large number of initiatives have been introduced, often as ad-hoc measures, their effectiveness in helping staff is unknown in most countries. The effectiveness of these initiatives should be evaluated to inform future crisis responses and strategies for health workforce development.

Objective: To assess shares of reimbursed orphan drugs and agreement in reimbursement decision-making in different European Union member states as well as to define odds for reimbursement influenced by the presence of conditional approval or exceptional circumstances granted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or by type of the disease.Methods: The list of authorized drugs with current orphan designations was collected from the website of the EMA. For each drug, the information regarding conditional approval or approval under exceptional circumstances was collected. The reimbursement statuses were available on national reimbursement or HTA agencies websites. The agreement for reimbursement decisions between selected countries was assessed using the κ coefficient for the measurement of agreement. The impact of the EMA's conditional approval as well as approval under exceptional circumstances was assessed using the logistic regression and presented as odds ratio.Results: The percentage of reimbursed orphan drugs varied significantly from 27% in Poland to 88% in Denmark, with an average value of 51% (p < 0.0001). Regarding the reimbursement status, the highest, substantial agreement was observed between Spain and Italy, and the lowest agreement was observed between Germany and England, with κ of 0.64 and 0.01, respectively. Conditional approval status significantly decreased the chance for reimbursement in France, Italy, and Spain by 77–80%; however, approval granted under exceptional circumstances had significant impact only in Germany with 85% decrease in chances for reimbursement. The type of the disease (oncology or metabolic) was significantly associated with both conditional approval (p of 0.03—oncology drugs were more likely to be conditionally approved then the rest of analyzed drugs) and exceptional circumstances (p of 0.02—drugs for metabolic diseases were more likely to be approved under exceptional circumstances).Conclusions: Access to reimbursed orphan drugs varies significantly across EU countries. The highest, substantial agreement in reimbursement decisions was observed between Italy and Spain and the lowest between Germany and England. Conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances were significant negative predictors of reimbursement in some countries and they were significantly associated with the type of the disease (oncology or metabolic).

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.