Davos, Switzerland — Findings from an ongoing research collaboration between FOUR, LinkedIn, CHeSS, and the VA on the AI workforce in health were featured in a session at the World Economic Forum on January 18, 2024.
In low- and middle-income countries, many believe that telehealth services could significantly expand access to doctors by offering remote access at low cost. Yet, despite its convenience, telehealth care is limited by the absence of physical examination, point-of-care testing, or immediate treatment. Hence it is unclear how individuals value such options compared to standard face-to-face care. We study this issue in South Africa with general practitioners who today mostly practice in the private sector and are geographically located in wealthier areas with higher health insurance coverage. We use an incentive-compatible method to elicit robust measures of willingness-to-pay (WTP) for telehealth and face-to-face consultations with general practitioners in a sample of uninsured individuals. We find that only 36% of respondents are willing to pay the prevailing market price for a telehealth consultation. We find average WTP for in-person consultations is only 10% higher than that of telehealth. Additionally, individuals with higher health needs are willing to pay a premium for face-to-face consultations, while others are indifferent. Our findings suggest that private telehealth services are better suited for more minor health needs, but are unlikely to expand access to a majority unless cheaper models are introduced.
Americans pay more for brand-name prescription medications than do residents of most other countries, with per capita spending on pharmaceuticals nearly three times the average of other member nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In 2022, high costs forced one of five U.S. adults age 65 and older to skip or delay filling a prescription, miss or reduce doses, or use someone else’s medication. More than half of patients resort to cost-coping strategies like coupons or free samples so they can get the medications they need but cannot afford. Such stopgap measures can have particularly serious consequences for older people who rely on medications to control chronic health conditions.
The key messages of this policy brief published by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies are as follows:
- Health systems performance assessment (HSPA) is about helping decision-makers to work through performance challenges in context, that is, in light of what drives their own health system and its outcomes, to make better informed choices about change.
- Health systems have porous boundaries but act on wider societal goals through a complex iteration of functions, intermediate objectives and goals.
- The global HSPA Framework is based on the consensus reached by a coalition of countries, key stakeholders and civil society coordinated by WHO (UHC2030). It reflects a rigorous review of existing tools by the UHC2030 Technical Working Group on Health System Assessments, which included Member States, global health organizations, key players like the European Commission, the OECD and the World Bank, donors and academia, and agreed a harmonized approach to assessment.
- The new elements of the framework are about learning from the pandemic and bringing to the fore those existing elements that proved particularly policy- relevant. These include the following.
- The health system plays a significant role in contributing to larger societal objectives and to well-being, for example by fostering cohesion and supporting economic development.
The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased mental health visits for parents of young children. This raises concerns about mental health impacts and highlights the need to address these concerns.
Study results raise concerns over prolonged high rates of mental health use during the pandemic, particularly in female adolescents and young women, and highlights the need to better monitor and identify mental health outcomes associated with COVID-19 containment measures and to develop policies to address these concerns.
“You get what you pay for” most aptly summarises the UK’s position in recent international comparisons published by the King’s Fund.1 Compared with the health systems of 19 high income countries, the UK spends just below average per capita on health and is “neither a leader nor a laggard” in overall performance, but “more of a laggard than a leader on health outcomes.” As the authors note, these findings are not so different from a series of comparisons published around the time of the 70th birthday of the NHS, five years ago.23 This indicates a lack of progress at best, but given that international data often come with a lag, the full effects of the pandemic on the health system are also not fully reflected.
COVID-19 has demonstrated the serious threat pandemics pose to both health and health systems. Pandemic preparedness plans are key strategic tools that enable policymakers to limit the severity of a disease outbreak but plans also need to build resilience into the health system to withstand pandemic shocks.
Health system performance assessment can be applied to pandemic preparedness planning to identify those strategies that improve health system resilience.
Which pandemic preparedness strategies strengthen health system resilience? Can health system strengthening and pandemic preparedness align? How can we use health system performance assessment to support pandemic preparedness? Join us to find out!
Jonathan Cylus and colleagues argue that inflationary pressures mean the NHS may have reached the limit on its ability to contain costs for goods and staff without affecting care.
The need for cardiac transplantation (CT) in eligible patients with advanced heart failure has continued to grow, with a substantial mismatch between organ availability and demand. As the demand for transplantable organs has risen in the United States,1 so has the prevalence of major cardiometabolic risk factors, including diabetes mellitus (DM), among the current and emerging pool of potential donors.2 Although the cardiovascular complications of DM are well recognized, donor DM status has not been shown to adversely impact post-CT outcomes in older analyses.3 However, this has not been evaluated in the contemporary era or over longer-term follow-up.
One of the most pressing challenges facing most health care systems is rising costs. As the population ages and the demand for health care services grows, there is a growing need to understand the drivers of these costs across systems. This paper attempts to address this gap by examining utilization and spending of the course of a year for two specific high-need high-cost patient types: a frail older person with a hip fracture and an older person with congestive heart failure and diabetes. Data on utilization and expenditure is collected across five health care settings (hospital, post-acute rehabilitation, primary care, outpatient specialty and drugs), in six countries (Canada (Ontario), France, Germany, Spain (Aragon), Sweden and the United States (fee for service Medicare) and used to construct treatment episode Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) that compare prices using baskets of goods from the different care settings. The treatment episode PPPs suggest other countries have more similar volumes of care to the US as compared to other standardization approaches, suggesting that US prices account for more of the differential in US health care expenditures. The US also differs with regards to the share of expenditures across care settings, with post-acute rehab and outpatient speciality expenditures accounting for a larger share of the total relative to comparators.
This policy brief is one of a new series to meet the needs of policy-makers and health system managers. The aim is to develop key messages to support evidence-informed policy-making and the editors will continue to strengthen the series by working with authors to improve the consideration given to policy options and implementation.
Health systems across high-income countries have similar goals, which include maximizing quality of care, offering services responsive to patient needs, and ensuring efficient health care delivery. Health systems also face similar challenges, such as changing demographics, limited national resources, and ongoing rising health care costs.3 In response, national policy makers are working to identify effective strategies to address these challenges, which are heavily influenced by existing health system features. A group of particular concern is the growing number of high-need, high-cost (HNHC) patients, a clinically diverse set of patients with multiple medical needs, frailty, and multimorbidity. While constituting a relatively small proportion of the population, these patients account for a disproportionate share of medical expenditures across health systems.
Although there are cross-country differences in the availability and structure of data sources, countries had the ability to effectively identify comparable HNHC personas for international study. This work serves as the methodological paper for six accompanying papers examining differences in spending, utilization, and outcomes for these personas across countries.
Distribution of health care consumption in different settings varies within countries, but there are also some common treatment patterns across all countries. Clinicians and policy makers need to look into these differences in care utilization by sex and care setting to determine whether they are justified or indicate suboptimal care.
Across seven countries, we find important variations in end-of-life care for patients who sustained a hip fracture, with some differences explained by sex and age. Our work sheds important insights that may help ongoing health policy discussions on equity, efficiency, and reimbursement in health care systems.
In this comparison of LTC services following a hip fracture, we found international differences in total use of institutional and noninstitutional care, longevity, and total expenditures. There exist opportunities to organize postacute care differently to maximize independence and mitigate costs.
Across 11 countries, there is substantial variation in health care spending and utilization for a complex multimorbid persona with heart failure and diabetes. Drivers of spending vary across countries, with the United States being the most expensive country due to high prices and higher use of facility-based rehabilitative care.
The United States spent approximately twice as much as other high-income countries on medical care, yet utilization rates in the United States were largely similar to those in other nations. Prices of labor and goods, including pharmaceuticals, and administrative costs appeared to be the major drivers of the difference in overall cost between the United States and other high-income countries. As patients, physicians, policy makers, and legislators actively debate the future of the US health system, data such as these are needed to inform policy decisions.
nternational comparisons of health system performance exert major influence on the public and on policy makers. These comparisons allow for reflection on and evaluation of national performance, provide empirical bases to drive reform, and serve as a way to promote accountability. Most international comparisons seek to identify high performers, often conceptualized as health systems with the best outcomes or most value for money. Even though these notions seem relatively straightforward, operationalizing them is difficult. There are at least 3 key challenges of conducting international comparisons: drawing the boundaries of the health system, managing limitations of data, and accounting for different values inherent in national systems. Without understanding and addressing these challenges, cross-national comparisons will fail to improve health policy and may lead to misinterpretations and poor policy making.