Health systems in transition最新文献

Since becoming independent, Kazakhstan has undertaken major efforts in reforming its post-Soviet health system. Two comprehensive reform programmes were developed in the 2000s: the National Programme for Health Care Reform and Development 2005-2010 and the State Health Care Development Programme for 2011-2015 Salamatty Kazakhstan. Changes in health service provision included a reduction of the hospital sector and an increased emphasis on primary health care. However, inpatient facilities continue to consume the bulk of health financing. Partly resulting from changing perspectives on decentralization, levels of pooling kept changing. After a spell of devolving health financing to the rayon level in 2000-2003, beginning in 2004 a new health financing system was set up that included pooling of funds at the oblast level, establishing the oblast health department as the single-payer of health services. Since 2010, resources for hospital services under the State Guaranteed Benefits Package have been pooled at the national level within the framework of implementing the Concept on the Unified National Health Care System. Kazakhstan has also embarked on promoting evidence-based medicine and developing and introducing new clinical practice guidelines, as well as facility-level quality improvements. However, key aspects of health system performance are still in dire need of improvement. One of the key challenges is regional inequities in health financing, health care utilization and health outcomes, although some improvements have been achieved in recent years. Despite recent investments and reforms, however, population health has not yet improved substantially.

The political context within which Northern Irelands integrated health and social care system operates has changed since the establishment of a devolved administration (the Northern Ireland Assembly, set up in 1998 but suspended between 2002 and 2007). A locally elected Health Minister now leads the publicly financed system and has considerable power to set policy and, in principle, to determine the operation of other health and social care bodies. The system underwent major reform following the passing of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) in 2009. The reform maintained the quasi purchaser provider split already in place but reduced the number and increased the size of many of the bodies involved in purchasing (known locally as commissioning) and delivering services. Government policy has generally placed greater emphasis on consultation and cooperation among health and social care bodies (including the department, commissioners and care providers) than on competition. The small size of the population (1.8 million) and Northern Irelands geographical isolation from the rest of the United Kingdom provide a rationale for eschewing a more competitive model. Without competition, effective control over the system requires information and transparency to ensure provider challenge, and a body outside the system to hold it to account. The restoration of the locally elected Assembly in 2007 has created such a body, but it remains to be seen how effectively it will exercise accountability.

The health system in Cyprus comprises separate public and private systems of similar size. The public system, which is financed by the state budget, is highly centralized and tightly controlled by the Ministry of Health. Entitlement to receive free health services is based on residency and income level. The private system is almost completely separate from the public system and for the most part is unregulated and largely financed out of pocket. In many ways there is an imbalance between the public and private sectors. The public system suffers from long waiting lists for many services, a situation that has been worsened by the recent economic crisis, while the private sector has an overcapacity of expensive medical technology that is underutilized. To try to address these and other inefficiencies, a new national health insurance scheme funded by taxes and social insurance contributions has been designed to offer universal coverage and introduce competition between the public and private sectors through changes in provider payment methods. However, the scheme has not been implemented due to cost concerns. Despite the low share of economic resources dedicated to health care and access issues for some vulnerable population groups, overall Cypriots enjoy good health comparable to other high-income countries.

The Health Systems in Transition (HiT) profiles are country-based reports that provide a detailed description of a health system and of policy initiatives in progress or under development. HiTs examine different approaches to the organization, financing and delivery of health services and the role of the main actors in health systems; describe the institutional framework, process, content and implementation of health and health care policies; and highlight challenges and areas that require more in-depth analysis. Various indicators show that the health of the population has improved over the last few decades. However, inequalities in health across socioeconomic groups have been increasing since the 1970s. The main diseases affecting the population are circulatory diseases, cancer, diseases of the respiratory system and diseases of the digestive system. Risk factors such as the steadily rising levels of alcohol consumption, the sharp increases in adult and child obesity and prevailing smoking levels are among the most pressing public health concerns, particularly as they reflect the growing health inequalities among different socioeconomic groups. Health services in England are largely free at the point of use. The NHS provides preventive medicine, primary care and hospital services to all those ordinarily resident. Over 12% of the population is covered by voluntary health insurance schemes, known in the United Kingdom as private medical insurance (PMI), which mainly provides access to acute elective care in the private sector. Responsibility for publicly funded health care rests with the Secretary of State for Health, supported by the Department of Health. The Department operates at a regional level through 10 strategic health authorities (SHAs), which are responsible for ensuring the quality and performance of local health services within their geographic area. Responsibility for commissioning health services at the local level lies with 151 primary care organizations, mainly primary care trusts (PCTs), each covering a geographically defined population. Health services are mainly financed from public sources, primarily general taxation and national insurance contributions (NICs). Some care is funded privately through PMI, some user charges, cost sharing and direct payments for health care delivered by NHS and private providers. While the reform programme that developed since 1997 proved to be massive in its scope, some basic features of the English NHS, such as its taxation-funding base, the predominantly public provision of services and division between purchasing (commissioning) and care delivery functions, remain unchanged. Nevertheless, in addition to the unprecedented level of financial resources allocated to the NHS since 2000, the most important reform measures included the introduction of the payment by results (PbR) hospital payment system; the expanded use of private sector provision; the introduction of more autonomous managemen

The Health Systems in Transition (HiT) profiles are country-based reports that provide a detailed description of a health system and of policy initiatives in progress or under development. HiTs examine different approaches to the organization, financing and delivery of health services, and the role of the main actors in health systems; describe the institutional framework, process, content and implementation of health and health care policies; and highlight challenges and areas that require more in-depth analysis. The Slovak health system is a system in progress. Major health reform in the period 2002 to 2006 introduced a new approach based on managed competition. Although large improvements have been made since the 1990s (for example in life expectancy and infant mortality), health outcomes are generally still substantially worse than the average for the EU15 but close to the other Visegrad Four countries. Per capita health spending (in purchasing power parity [PPP]) was around half the EU15 average. A large share of these resources was absorbed by pharmaceutical spending (28% in 2008, compared to 16% in OECD countries). Some important utilization indicators signal plenty of resources in the system but may also indicate excess bed capacity and overutilization. The number of physicians and nurses per capita has been actively reduced since 2001 but remains above the average of the EU12 (i.e. the 12 countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007). An ageing workforce and professional migration may reinforce a shortage of health care workers. People have free choice of general practitioner (GP) and specialist. Their services are provided without cost-sharing from patients, with the notable exception of dental procedures. Inpatient care and specialized ambulatory care are provided in general hospitals and specialized hospitals. Pharmaceutical expenditure per capita accounts for one-third of public expenditure on health care. Long-term care is provided by health care facilities and social care facilities. Slovakia has a progressive system of financing health care. However, the health reforms of 2002 to 2006 led to an increase in the number of households that contributed more from their income and the distributive impacts were not equitable. This was mainly caused by the introduction of a reference pricing scheme for pharmaceuticals. Some key challenges remain: improving the health status of the population and the quality of care while securing the future financial sustainability of the system.

The HiT reviews are country-based reports that provide a detailed description of a health system and of policy initiatives in progress or under development. HiTs examine different approaches to the organization, financing and delivery of health services and the role of the main actors in health systems; describe the institutional framework, process, content and implementation of health and health care policies; and highlight challenges and areas that require more in-depth analysis. At independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian health system inherited an extensive, centralized Semashko system, but was quick to reform health financing by adopting a mandatory health insurance (MHI) model in 1993. MHI was introduced in order to open up an earmarked stream of funding for health care in the face of severe fiscal constraints. While the health system has evolved and changed significantly since the early 1990 s, the legacy of having been a highly centralized system focused on universal access to basic care remains. High energy prices on world markets have ensured greater macroeconomic stability, a budget surplus and improvements in living standards for most of the Russian population. However, despite an overall reduction in the poverty rate, there is a marked urban rural split and rural populations have worse health and poorer access to health services than urban populations. The increase in budgetary resources available to policy-makers have led to a number of recent federal-level health programmes that have focused on the delivery of services and increasing funding for priority areas including primary care provision in rural areas. Nevertheless, public health spending in the Russian Federation remains relatively low given the resources available. However, it is also clear that, even with the current level of financing, the performance of the health system could be improved. Provider payment mechanisms are the main obstacle to improving technical efficiency in the Russian health system, as most budget funding channelled through local government is input based. For this reason, the most recent reforms as well as legislation in the pipeline seek to ensure all health care funding is channelled through a strengthened MHI system with contracts for provider payments being made using output-based measures.

The Portuguese population enjoys good health and increasing life expectancy, though at lower levels than other western European countries. All residents in Portugal have access to health care provided by the National Health Service (NHS), financed mainly through taxation. Co-payments have been increasing over time, and the level of cost-sharing is highest for pharmaceutical products. Approximately one-fifth to a quarter of the population enjoys a second (or more) layer of health insurance coverage through health subsystems and voluntary health insurance (VHI). Health care delivery is based on both public and private providers. Public provision is predominant in primary care and hospital care, with a gatekeeping system in place for the former. Pharmaceutical products, diagnostic technologies and private practice by physicians constitute the bulk of private health care provision. The Portuguese health system has not undergone any major changes on the financing side since the early 1990s, despite the steady growth of public health expenditure. On the other hand, many measures have been adopted to improve the performance of the health system, including public private partnerships (PPPs) for new hospitals, a change in NHS hospital management structures, pharmaceutical reforms, the reorganization of primary care and the creation of long-term care networks. Some of these measures have faced opposition from the (local) population, namely those related to the closure of health care facilities. There is an overall awareness, and concern, about the rise in health care expenditure in Portugal. Most of the reforms that have come into effect have done so too recently to measure any effects at present (January 2011).

Hungary has achieved a successful transition from an overly centralized, integrated Semashko-style health care system to a purchaser provider split model with output-based payment methods. Although there have been substantial increases in life expectancy in recent years among both men and women, many health outcomes remain poor, placing Hungary among the countries with the worst health status and highest rate of avoidable mortality in the EU (life expectancy at birth trailed the EU27 average by 5.1 years in 2009). Lifestyle factors especially the traditionally unhealthy Hungarian diet, alcohol consumption and smoking play a very important role in shaping the overall health of the population.In the single-payer system, the recurrent expenditure on health services is funded primarily through compulsory, non-risk-related contributions made by eligible individuals or from the state budget. The central government has almost exclusive power to formulate strategic direction and to issue and enforce regulations regarding health care. In 2009 Hungary spent 7.4% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health, with public expenditure accounting for 69.7% of total health spending, and with health expenditure per capita ranking slightly above the average for the new EU Member States, but considerably below the average for the EU27 in 2008. Health spending has been unstable over the years, with several waves of increases followed by longer periods of cost-containment and budget cuts. The share of total health expenditure attributable to private sources has been increasing, most of it accounted for by out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses. A substantial share of the latter can be attributed to informal payments, which are a deeply rooted characteristic of the Hungarian health system and a source of inefficiency and inequity. Voluntary health insurance, on the other hand, amounted to only 7.4% of private and 2.7% of total health expenditure in 2009. Revenue sources for health have been diversified over the past 15 years, but the current mix has yet to be tested for sustainability. The fit between existing capacities and the health care needs of the population remains less than ideal, but improvements have been made over the past 15 years. In general, the average length of stay and hospital admission rates have decreased since 1990, as have bed occupancy rates. However, capacity for long-term nursing care in both the inpatient and outpatient setting is still considered insufficient. Hungary is currently also facing a health workforce crisis, explained by the fact that it is a net donor country with regard to health care worker migration, and health care professionals on the whole are ageing. Although the overall technical efficiency of the system has increased considerably, mainly due to the introduction of output-based payment systems, allocative efficiency remains a problem. Considerable variations exist in service delivery both geographically and by specialization

Turkey has accomplished remarkable improvements in terms of health status in the last three decades, particularly after the implementation of the Health Transformation Program (HTP (Saglikta Donus, um Programi)). Average life expectancy reached 71.8 for men and 76.8 for women in 2010. The infant mortality rate (IMR) decreased to 10.1 per 1000 live births in 2010, down from 117.5 in 1980. Despite these achievements, there are still discrepancies in terms of infant mortality between rural and urban areas and different parts of the country, although these have been diminishing over the years. The higher infant mortality rates in rural areas can be attributed to low socioeconomic conditions, low female education levels and the prevalence of infectious diseases. The main causes of death are diseases of the circulatory system followed by malignant neoplasms. Turkeys health care system has been undergoing a far-reaching reform process (HTP) since 2003 and radical changes have occurred both in the provision and the financing of health care services. Health services are now financed through a social security scheme covering the majority of the population, the General Health Insurance Scheme (GHIS (Genel Saglik Sigortasi)), and services are provided both by public and private sector facilities. The Social Security Institution (SSI (Sosyal Guvenlik Kurumu)), financed through payments by employers and employees and government contributions in cases of budget deficit, has become a monopsonic (single buyer) power on the purchasing side of health care services. On the provision side, the Ministry of Health (Saglik Bakenligi) is the main actor and provides primary, secondary and tertiary care through its facilities across the country. Universities are also major providers of tertiary care. The private sector has increased its range over recent years, particularly after arrangements paved the way for private sector provision of services to the SSI. The most important reforms since 2003 have been improvements in citizens health status, the introduction of the GHIS, the instigation of a purchaser provider split in the health care system, the introduction of a family practitioner scheme nationwide, the introduction of a performance-based payment system in Ministry of Health hospitals, and transferring the ownership of the majority of public hospitals to the Ministry of Health. Future challenges for the Turkish health care system include, reorganizing and enforcing a referral system from primary to higher levels of care, improving the supply of health care staff, introducing and extending public hospital governance structures that aim to grant autonomous status to public hospitals, and further improving patient rights.

Since the successful transition to a freely elected parliament and a market economy after 1989, Poland is now a stable democracy and is well represented within political and economic organizations in Europe and worldwide. The strongly centralized health system based on the Semashko model was replaced with a decentralized system of mandatory health insurance, complemented with financing from state and territorial self-government budgets. There is a clear separation of health care financing and provision: the National Health Fund (NFZ) the sole payer in the system is in charge of health care financing and contracts with public and non-public health care providers. The Ministry of Health is the key policy-maker and regulator in the system and is supported by a number of advisory bodies, some of them recently established. Health insurance contributions, borne entirely by employees, are collected by intermediary institutions and are pooled by the NFZ and distributed between the 16 regional NFZ branches. In 2009, Poland spent 7.4% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health. Around 70% of health expenditure came from public sources and over 83.5% of this expenditure can be attributed to the (near) universal health insurance. The relatively high share of private expenditure is mostly represented by out-of-pocket (OOP) payments, mainly in the form of co-payments and informal payments. Voluntary health insurance (VHI) does not play an important role and is largely limited to medical subscription packages offered by employers. Compulsory health insurance covers 98% of the population and guarantees access to a broad range of health services. However, the limited financial resources of the NFZ mean that broad entitlements guaranteed on paper are not always available. Health care financing is overall at most proportional: while financing from health care contributions is proportional and budgetary subsidies to system funding are progressive, high OOP expenditures, particularly in areas such as pharmaceuticals, are highly regressive. The health status of the Polish population has improved substantially, with average life expectancy at birth reaching 80.2 years for women and 71.6 years for men in 2009. However, there is still a vast gap in life expectancy between Poland and the western European Union (EU) countries and between life expectancy overall and the expected number of years without illness or disability. Given its modest financial, human and material health care resources and the corresponding outcomes, the overall financial efficiency of the Polish system is satisfactory. Both allocative and technical efficiency leave room for improvement. Several measures, such as prioritizing primary care and adopting new payment mechanisms such as diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), have been introduced in recent years but need to be expanded to other areas and intensified. Additionally, numerous initiatives to enhance quality control and build the required e