Health Economics Policy and Law最新文献

In August 2020 the UK government announced without warning the abolition of Public Health England (PHE), the principal UK agency for the promotion and protection of public health. We undertook a research programme seeking to understand the factors surrounding this decision. While the underlying issues are complex two competing interpretations have emerged: an 'official' explanation, which highlights the failure of PHE to scale up its testing capacity in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic as the fundamental reason for closing it down and a 'sceptical' interpretation, which ascribes the decision to blame-avoidance behaviour on the part of leading government figures. This paper reviews crucial claims in these two competing explanations exploring the arguments for and against each proposition. It concludes that neither is adequate and that the inability adequately to address the problem of testing (which triggered the decision to close PHE) lies deeper in the absence of the norms of responsible government in UK politics and the state. However our findings do provide some guidance to the two new organizations established to replace PHE to maximize their impact on public health. We hope that this information will contribute to the independent national COVID inquiry.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is tasked with the 'attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health', yet, it is widely struggling to meet this mandate, and COVID-19 has revealed significant limitations of the organisation. Despite clear guidance provided by the institution as to how best to respond to the pathogen, many governments departed from WHO's guidance in their response efforts. Is this a new crisis for WHO? Does WHO need to restore its legitimacy in the eyes of the global community? As renewed calls for changes to WHO emerge, in this perspective we lay out the obstacles WHO face to become the WHO 'we' need. The assumption is that UN member states need an empowered and well-funded organisation. Yet, many years of discussion of reform of WHO have failed to lead to meaningful change, and glaring challenges remain in its financing, governance and politics, which are considered in turn. The reality may be that we have the WHO that UN member states need - one that can provide guidance and advice, but also take criticism for health governance failures when states want to avoid blame or responsibility. We discuss this, by analysing three key areas of WHO'S challenges: mandate and scope; structure, governance and money and domestic vs international.

Multimorbid patients who enter English NHS hospitals are frequently subject to care pathways designed to assess, diagnose and treat single medical conditions. Opportunities are thereby lost to offer patients more holistic, person-centred care. Hospital organisations elsewhere are known to use in-hospital, multi-specialty, integrated clinical care (ICC) to overcome this problem. This perspective piece aims to critically discuss barriers to implementing this form of ICC in the English NHS focusing on six key areas: information technologies, the primary-secondary care interface, internal hospital processes, finance, workload, professional roles and behaviours. Integrated care programmes currently underway are largely focused on macro (system) and meso (organisational) levels. A micro (clinical) level ICC, offering highly coordinated multispecialty expertise to multimorbid hospital patients could fill an important gap in the current care pathways.

Many countries are reconfiguring their emergency care systems to improve quality and efficiency of care, and this often includes the concentration of emergency departments (EDs). This trend is evident in the Netherlands, but the best approach is the subject of debate among stakeholders. We (i) examined the views of stakeholders on the concentration of EDs in the Netherlands and (ii) identified the main conflicting interests and trade-offs that are relevant for health policy. To do this, we organised focus groups and semi-structured interviews with emergency care professionals, hospital executives and selected external stakeholders. First, the participants saw both advantages and disadvantages to concentration, but these were also contested and debated. Second, we found that - sometimes conflicting - public health care goals (i.e. quality, accessibility and affordability) and narrower interests (e.g. the interests of specific hospitals, insurers, medical specialists and local administrators) were both pointed out. Third, there was no clear preferred approach to the future organisation of EDs, although most stakeholders mentioned some form of centralised decision-making at the national level, combined with regional customisation. Our findings will facilitate health policy decision-making around the reconfiguration of emergency care with the long-term goal of achieving efficient and high-quality emergency care.

Health misinformation, most visibly following the COVID-19 infodemic, is an urgent threat that hinders the success of public health policies. It likely contributed, and will continue to contribute, to avoidable deaths. Policymakers around the world are being pushed to tackle this problem. Legislative acts have been rolled out or announced in many countries and at the European Union level. The goal of this paper is not to review particular legislative initiatives, or to assess the impact and efficacy of measures implemented by digital intermediaries, but to reflect on the high constitutional and ethical stakes involved in tackling health misinformation through speech regulation. Our findings suggest that solutions focused on regulating speech are likely to encounter significant constraints, as policymakers grasp with the limitations imposed by freedom of expression and ethical considerations. Solutions focused on empowering individuals - such as media literacy initiatives, fact-checking or credibility labels - are one way to avoid such hurdles.

Public long-term care insurance (LTCI), which provides home and institutional care benefits, was introduced in July 2008 in South Korea. This study aims to evaluate the effects of the introduction of LTCI on older people's medical service use, including outpatient visits, inpatient services and longer stays (181 days or longer) in hospitals by implementing a quasi-experiment design with a generalised difference-in-difference method. The results showed that the introduction of LTCI did not change the use of outpatient medical services, although the medical costs of older people who used medical services at least once decreased by 9.4%. For the inpatient services, hospitalisation rates declined by 2.7% as a result of the LTCI. Length of stay and inpatient expenses decreased by 15.6 and 9.5%, respectively. For older people of LTC grade 2, eligible for long-term care facilities (LTCF), prolonged hospitalisation rates decreased by 1.6% due to the LTCI. In conclusion, the introduction of LTCI in South Korea has contributed to decreasing the use of inpatient services and longer stays in hospitals, which suggests that the utilisation of LTCF has become a substitute for some social admissions in hospitals.

This study evaluates the impact of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) on children's health outcomes in developing countries. Using a difference-in-differences identification strategy, we find that GAVI has reduced neonatal, infant and under-five mortality rates. The impact of GAVI on children's health outcomes is larger in countries with lower per capita income. Our findings underscore the relevance of health interventions in improving children's health outcomes in developing economies.