Health Economics Policy and Law最新文献

This article is a critique of a report, Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. The report proposes a framework that is meant to improve procedural fairness and how decisions in financing of health care can be fairer. The author of this article argues that while procedural fairness and the proposed framework are an important step in improving equity in health sector financing, the report falls short on several aspects of achieving the set objectives. First, the report does not place emphasis on the role of civic education as an important component of public education building on access to information. Therefore, there should be caution in assuming that improved dissemination of information will lead to increased civic action. Secondly, the author proposes that the report include principles that should guide how decisions are made in public deliberations when consensus cannot be achieved. Lastly, the framework in the report does not speak to the complexity of the trade-offs that have to be made between health and other sectors. The author argues that a key area of deliberations in health financing is understanding how practitioners in the sector can argue for better funding against other competing sector such as education and agriculture while still finding complementarities.

Although the fair financing report, 'Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage', has many sage things to say about democratic deliberative processes, its title belies its content: the report does not offer any assessment of processes for financing universal health coverage. What it does instead is scrutinise processes for deciding how to finance universal health coverage without any linkage to substantive questions concerning financing, and, moreover, the discussion is not narrowly focused on fairness.

In Ukraine, patients and their family members face numerous barriers to health care services. In response, they use coping strategies, that are manifold and complex activities aimed at overcoming these barriers, the financial burden of the treatment, and the poor quality of health care services. These activities include formal and informal practices. Based on representative survey data from 2015 (N = 2,022), we identify patterns in the use of coping strategies, specific coping strategies used to secure good quality consultation and treatment, and analyse opinions and actions towards coping practices. We further analyse the factors associated with the last experience of coping and look at patterns of connection building. We find that the chances of using both money and connection as a coping strategy are higher for people with incomplete higher and highest levels of education. The size of this effect increases with the level of education. Older people, people with better health, and people with a higher opinion of the state use informal practices less, while women are more active in developing connections. The closer the relationship is with a medical doctor, the higher is the chance that such connection will be used in case of health service consumption.

Physician databases constitute an essential component of health workforce planning. However, while some countries have established functioning national physician databases, others have failed to do so. We compared the healthcare systems of two technologically and economically developed countries, Canada and Israel, which represent cases of respective success and failure in establishing physician databases. A comparative analysis was conducted using a historical-institutionalist approach to examine contemporary health policy outcomes. White papers, studies on healthcare human resources, and reports by professional committees were examined to explore the aims, interests, positions, and actions of stakeholders. In Canada, state-medical profession cooperation, deep-rooted in a longstanding regulatory bargain between the two parties, has facilitated the creation and management of physician databases, albeit limited and in need of urgent improvement, on national and jurisdictional levels. The lack of such regulatory arrangement coupled with enduring conflicted relations between stakeholders due to particular historical developments have hindered the development of an Israeli equivalent database so far. Finally, health policy outcomes may be explained against the backdrop of broader political, governance, and organisational contexts. How medical organisations respond to governmental healthcare initiatives is heavily influenced by their institutional position vis-à-vis the state, shaped by historical processes and regulatory arrangements.

We summarise key messages from the World Bank Report Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. A central lesson of the Report is that in decision-making on the path to Universal Health Coverage (UHC), procedural fairness matters alongside substantive fairness. Decision systems should be assessed using a complete conception of procedural fairness that embodies core commitments to impartial and equal consideration of interests and perspectives. These commitments demand that comprehensive information is gathered and disclosed and that justifications for policies are publicly debated; that participation in decision-making is enabled; and that these characteristics of the decision system are institutionalised rather than up to the good will of decision-makers. Procedural fairness can improve equity in outcomes, raise legitimacy and trust, and can help make reforms last. While improving procedural fairness can be costly and there are barriers to achieving it, the range of instruments that countries at varying levels of income and institutional capacity have used with some success shows that, in many contexts, advances in procedural fairness in health financing are possible and worthwhile.

The framework presented in the World Bank report Open and Inclusive: Fair processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage effectively connects proposed decision-making principles with practical examples that country governments can use to pursue greater fairness. In this commentary, we consider the suggestion that international development partners might use the report's criteria to examine their own processes. We consider what the report's primary Fair Process principles - equality, impartiality and consistency - imply for development partners. Specifically, we address two questions in turn: (i) how relevant the Fair Processes report is to development assistance for health; (ii) if it is deemed relevant, what practical implications does the report have for how aid works? We address the second question by briefly applying the framework to a particular global health initiative, namely the United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Our analysis suggests that development partners' additional sets of accountabilities, particularly linked to funding sources, may pose more fundamental challenges to impartiality than to equality and consistency in decision-making processes. A question inviting further examination, then, is how development partners can redesign their processes to optimise impartiality given institutional constraints that bind them independently of the populations they purport to serve.

In response to our critics, we clarify and defend key ideas in the report Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. First, we argue that procedural fairness has greater value than Dan Hausman allows. Second, we argue that the Report aligns with John Kinuthia's view that a knowledgeable public and a capable civil society, alongside good facilitation, are important for effective public deliberation. Moreover, we agree with Kinuthia that the Report's framework for procedural fairness applies not merely within the health sector, but also to the wider budget process. Third, we argue that while Dheepa Rajan and Benjamin Rouffy-Ly are right that robust processes for equal participation are often central to a fair process, sometimes improvements in other aspects of procedural fairness, such as transparency, can take priority over strengthening participation. Fourth, while we welcome Sara Bennett and Maria Merritt's fascinating use of the Report's principles of procedural fairness to assess the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, we argue that their application of the Report's principle of equality to development partners' decision-making requires further justification.

Legal status is an important social determinant of health. Immigration enforcement policies may be an important contributor to health disparities in the form of interior border checkpoints (IBCs). These checkpoints may prevent immigrants and their families from seeking needed medical care. Currently, we do not know how these barriers are perceived by the public. We administered a survey of 6,178 respondents from 13 November to 19 November of 2023 that contained a survey experiment to assess public attitudes on the issue. Respondents were generally not supportive of detaining individuals at IBCs or medical facilities for emergencies regardless of characteristics of the care-seeking individual. A majority was supportive of detention when medical treatment was complete. Respondents were generally more sympathetic towards children and pregnant women. Partisanship and sympathy expressed towards immigrants influenced attitudes towards detention. Findings based on race and ethnicity showed inconsistencies. A majority of Americans did not believe that IBCs should impede undocumented immigrants from accessing medical care, especially in emergency situations and for children and pregnant women. Our findings indicate that there is broad public support for expanding existing policies to allow for undocumented individuals to pass through IBCs to access medical care.

Prior to the No Surprises Act (NSA), numerous states passed laws protecting patients from surprise medical bills from out-of-network (OON) hospital-based physicians supporting elective treatment in in-network hospitals. Even in non-emergency situations, patients have little ability to choose physicians such as anaesthesiologists, pathologists or radiologists. Using a comprehensive, multi-payer claims database, we estimated the effect of these laws on hospital-based physician reimbursement, charges, network participation and potential surprise billing episodes. Overall, the state laws were associated with a reduction in anaesthesiology prices and charges, but an increase in pathology and radiology prices. The price effects for each state exhibit substantial heterogeneity. California and New Jersey experienced increases in network participation by anaesthesiologists and pathologists and reductions in potential surprise billing episodes, but, overall, we find little evidence of changes in network participation across all of the states implementing surprise billing laws. Our results suggest that the effects of the NSA may vary across states.

Private equity (PE) firms play an increasingly important role in healthcare. Yet, existing research remains uneven, mostly focused on the United States and on certain sectors such as nursing homes. Some geographical areas and health specialties remain under-explored. This brief paper outlines a research agenda focusing on three key issues: (1) PE's significance and (2) business strategies in healthcare, and (3) PE's impacts on health and healthcare. The paper uses primary care in Ireland as an example. The proposed research agenda should improve our understanding of the nature of PE in healthcare and serve as a basis for policy-makers to explore appropriate and effective regulation of PE to reduce its negative impacts if and when they exist.