Repeated Supreme Court cases suggest uninformed sterilization care is a persistent and contemporary issue in India. This article examines patient satisfaction ratings as a potential accountability mechanism to assess normalized forms of coercion. With a sample of over 180,000 sterilized women in India, it identifies a statistically significant relationship between exposure to coercive care and odds of reporting low quality. However, over 95 percent of women who underwent a tubal ligation procedure rated their care highly even when provided with inadequate information (a recognized form of coercion), with more pronounced discordance when a patient belonged to a historically marginalized caste. System-modifiable factors, such as conditional cash transfers (CCT) to the patient and postpartum procedure timing increased reporting discordance. Using a reproductive justice lens and building on Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, this work examines how to identify human rights violations in the routine delivery of care.

The aim of this report from the Expert Group (see Box 1) on Health Systems Performance Assessment (HSPA) is to establish a comprehensive definition of low-value care in line with the concept of valuebased healthcare and from a health system perspective, and to identify low-value care indicators and measures to facilitate the reduction of low-value care for national HSPA practices. To achieve this aim, a “value-based healthcare” working group was established as a subgroup of the Expert Group with country representatives from Belgium, Czechia, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia as well as the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the DirectorateGeneral for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE)

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment for patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis but some patients exhibit a discrepancy between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient satisfaction (PS). This study aims to identify predictors for patients reporting unfavorable PROs but high PS and vice versa.

Patient harm remains an important concern in hospital care,1 urging a reprioritisation of patient safety and healthcare quality.2 The past 20 years have been characterised by indispensable quality developments,3 including accreditation and public reporting providing foundations for monitoring and promoting healthcare organisation performance.4 Yet, the quality progress appears unsustainable in the long term, as indicated by, for example, nosocomial infections rising in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic,5 6 or mortality reductions being abolished weeks after accreditation survey visits.7 A resilient safety culture with quality truly embedded into everyday practice can only occur after increased awareness of hospital-wide safety risks.3 8

In Belgium, the setting of this study, there is a lack of systematic hospital-wide quality monitoring, despite indications of important differences in patient outcomes between hospitals persisting over time.9 It has been shown for urology patients10 that outcomes such as mortality, readmissions and prolonged length of stay vary to a great extent between hospitals, largely impacting healthcare equity and patient safety.11 12 No data exist on variation in patient outcomes across all patient service lines and across multiple patient outcomes. By recognising which patient service lines are most prone to between-hospital variation and by identifying which hospitals have the highest potential for quality improvement (QI), targeted initiatives can be established. Such focused efforts are highly required in times of scarce financial and human resources and poor outcome prevalence.

The primary aim of this study was to examine inter-hospital variability in in-hospital mortality, unplanned 30-day readmissions and prolonged length of hospital stay (pLOS) across all Major Diagnostic Categories (MDCs) for all Belgian acute-care hospitals. Second, we aimed to estimate the number of outcomes potentially avoidable if successful QI policies could be established. Finally, we aimed to identify a set of high-impact-opportunity hospitals where policymakers can stimulate QI initiatives set to improve patient outcomes.

Health systems experience difficult trade-offs when paying for new drugs. In England, funding recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for new drugs might generate health gains but inevitably result in forgone health as the funds cannot be used for alternative treatments and services. We aimed to evaluate the population health impact of NICE recommendations for new drugs during 2000–20.

The Inflation Reduction Act instructs Medicare to negotiate prices of top-selling drugs and sets statutory upper limits (“ceilings”) on negotiated prices. Medicare can negotiate prices below the ceilings based on how prices and clinical benefits of these drugs compare with those of therapeutic alternatives. In August 2024, Medicare published the negotiated prices for the first 10 drugs selected for negotiation; these prices will come into effect in 2026 and will apply to all Medicare Part D plans. We analyzed how negotiated prices in the US compared with net prices before negotiation, ceiling prices, and list prices in 6 other high-income countries.

Biologics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) receive 12 years of guaranteed protection from biosimilar competition compared with 5 years of protection from generic competition for new small-molecule drugs. Under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, biologics are exempt from selection for Medicare price negotiation for 11 years compared with 7 years for small-molecule drugs. Congress codified these differing legal protections on the premise that biologics require more time and resources to develop and have weaker patent protection, necessitating additional protections for manufacturers to recoup their development costs and generate adequate returns on investment.

Launching Lifelong Health by Improving Health Care for Children, Youth, And Families presents a vision for transforming the child and adolescent health care system. This report also examines how the health care system can be better positioned to equitably address the needs of all children and families and leverage community supports. This requires transforming key components, such as health care financing, public health investment, community partnerships, and accountability strategies, to encourage team-based care delivery models and attention to and health promotion, prevention, and root causes of health disparities.

In contrast to bilateral aid, aid disbursed from multilateral institutions increased significantly at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, at a time when a coherent and effective multilateral response is needed most, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed a shifting landscape of donor agencies that struggle with basic functions, such as cross-national coordination. While multilaterals are uniquely positioned to transcend national priorities and respond to pandemics, functionally we find official development assistance (ODA) from these entities may increasingly mimic the attributes of bilateral aid. We explore three important, but not comprehensive, attributes of aid leading up to and during the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) earmarking, (2) donor concentration and (3) aid modality.

While the effectiveness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as an intervention to impact patient pathways has been established for cancer care, it is unknown for other indications. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a PROM-based monitoring and alert intervention for early detection of critical recovery paths following hip and knee replacement.

The intervention significantly improved patient outcomes at lower costs in patients with hip replacements when compared with standard care. Further it showed a nonsignificant cost reduction in knee replacement patients. This reinforces the notion that PROMs can be utilised as a cost-effective instrument for remote monitoring in standard care settings.

In this study we investigated the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and outcomes of the mpox outbreak related to clade IIb in the EMR. We raise concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the data, given that the number of cases reported to the WHO from EMR countries appears to be significantly lower than the number of cases documented within the region. This discrepancy could impact the reliability of the reported figures and the region's response strategies. Despite these challenges, collaborative efforts across EMR countries have laid the groundwork for effective outbreak response, underscoring the importance of ongoing regional cooperation to enhance future preparedness strategies.

Little is known about how long it takes for new medicines to reach countries with different income levels. We analyzed data, sourced from IQVIA, on the timing of new drug launches in seventy-five low-, middle-, and high-income markets from 1982 to 2024. The sample captured the majority of essential medicines (as designated by the World Health Organization in the twenty-third Model List of Essential Medicines) that first came into medical use anywhere globally from 1982 onward. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to quantify delays in launches across countries. Our analysis comprised 119 medicines with 6,871 observed launches. Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of first launches occurred in just eight countries (in order of the most first launches, the US, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan). From the first launch globally, the median time to availability was 2.7 years for high-income countries, 4.5 years for upper-middle-income countries, 6.9 years for lower-middle-income countries, and 8.0 years for low-income countries. The gap between richer (high- and upper-middle-income) and poorer (lower-middle- and low-income) countries remained largely unchanged over time. Strategies to address the disparities highlighted by this analysis are urgently needed.

The study underscores the importance of understanding and addressing variation in acute care utilization for mental health conditions, including the differential effect of COVID-19, across different health care systems. Further research is needed to elucidate the extent to which factors such as workforce capacity, access barriers, financial incentives, COVID-19 preparedness, and community-based care may contribute to these variations.

Over the last two decades, comparative health systems research has gained significant traction as policymakers and researchers seek to better understand how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of health-care systems worldwide. While most studies undertaken to achieve these goals continue to be predominantly at the national or sub-national levels, the role and importance of cross-country comparison research is increasingly being acknowledged. Recent challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, inflationary pressures, rising health-care costs globally, climate change, and decreasing life expectancy among several high-income countries have increased the importance and urgency of this work. Collaborative research efforts across disciplines and countries are therefore needed to identify focused solutions that health systems can apply to the challenges they currently face, and those that may arise in the future.

In this editorial, we summarize the current state of cross-country comparison work at a high level, outline research gaps that remain, and discuss the contribution to this literature of research contained in this special section on international comparisons.

This is a descriptive study using time-series analyses to quantify the annual effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID-19 hospitalizations for 20 diagnostic categories and 15 surgical procedures. We compared expected hospitalizations had the pandemic never occurred in 2020–2021, estimated using autoregressive integrated moving average modeling with data from 2010 to 2019, with observed hospitalizations. Observed-to-expected ratios and missed hospitalizations were computed as measures of COVID-19 impact. Mixed linear models were employed to examine associations between hospitalization observed-to-expected ratios and covariates. There was marked cross-country variability in disruptions to hospitalizations and ambulatory care. Certain health system characteristics appeared to be more protective, such as insurance coverage, and number of inputs including healthcare workforce and beds.

Many studies have documented differences in maternal health outcomes across high-income countries, noting higher and growing maternal mortality in the US. However, few studies have detailed the journeys of care that may underlie or influence differences in outcomes. This study explores how maternity care entitlements and experiences vary among the US and five high-income countries, to study variations in child delivery care practices. Health systems with different organizational structure, insurance coverage and with known differences in maternal care delivery and maternal health outcomes were selected. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire, comparison of secondary data, and literature scan. We find that, while prenatal care approaches were broadly similar across all six countries, there were some important differences in maternity care provision among the comparator countries: (1) the US has more fragmented coverage during pregnancy than comparator countries (2) there were differences with regards to the main provider delivering care, the US relied primarily on physician specialists rather than midwives for prenatal care and delivery which was more common in other countries, (3) the intensity of labor and delivery care varied, particularly with regards to rates of epidural use which were highest in the US and France and lowest in Japan, and (4), there was large variation in the use of postnatal home visits to assess health and wellbeing, notably lacking in the US. The US’ greater use of specialists and more intensive labor and delivery care may partially explain higher costs of care than in comparator countries. Moreover, US maternal mortality is concentrated in the pre- and postnatal periods and thus may be related to poorer access to prenatal care and the lack of an organized, community-based approach to postnatal care. Given the increase in maternal mortality across countries, policy makers should look across countries to identify promising models of care delivery, and should consider investing in more comprehensive coverage in pre- and postnatal care.

Health systems should be designed to withstand emerging shocks and challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and economic and social crises. The ability for a health system to sustain its performance, or even improve it, in the face of a shock can inform policymakers as to how resilient it is. The WHO’s Health System Performance Assessment (HSPA) Framework for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) offers policymakers a conceptual tool for a comprehensive assessment of health system performance. Specifically, it provides a framework from which to examine the performance of the health system itself, but also of the four health system functions - governance, resource generation, financing and service delivery - that make up health systems. The HSPA framework can thus aid policymakers and researchers in examining health systems and considering how shocks may influence the outcomes they produce, as well as the necessary structures that are required for it to produce and sustain performance. In this chapter, we present in detail how the framework can be used to examine how resilient health system performance is to different types of shocks. We consider through a series of case studies both how to use the framework to assess the vulnerabilities of the four key health system functions to different shocks and also how this may translate into changes in performance.

More than two decades ago, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed its Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) to monitor potentially preventable and severe adverse events within hospitals. Application of PSIs outside the US was explored more than a decade ago, but it is uncertain whether they remain relevant within Europe, as no up-to-date assessments of overall PSI-associated adverse event rates or interhospital variability can be found in the literature. This article assesses the nationwide occurrence and variability of thirteen adverse events for a case study of Belgium. We studied 4,765,850 patient stays across all 101 hospitals for 2016–18. We established that although adverse event rates were generally low, with an adverse event observed in 0.1 percent of medical hospital stays and in 1.2 percent of surgical hospital stays, they were higher than equivalent US rates and were prone to considerable between-hospital variability. Failure-to-rescue rates, for example, equaled 23 percent, whereas some hospitals exceeded nationwide central line–associated bloodstream infection rates by a factor of 8. Policy makers and hospital managers can prioritize PSIs that have high adverse event rates or large variability, such as failure to rescue or central line–associated bloodstream infections, to improve the quality of care in Belgian hospitals.

Irene Papanicolas and colleagues consider the potential of alternatives to quality-based pay-for-performance systems and the remaining challenges

Over the past two decades most healthcare systems have modified the way they pay providers to attach financial incentives directly to quality of care. This type of payment, often referred to as pay for performance, gained momentum in the early 2000s, following several studies highlighting concerns about the quality and safety of healthcare systems.1 However, the evidence suggests they have been largely ineffective in improving quality. In response, health payers in various countries have introduced alternative payment models that encourage more effective, efficient, and integrated healthcare. We examine the early evidence on these alternative models and consider what they can realistically achieve.

Comparing health policy measures before elections and identifying potential gaps in the health policy debate can be challenging. We explored the use of the Health System Performance Assessment for Universal Health Coverage framework to analyse health policy proposals by classifying health policy measures outlined in political manifestos into four health system functions: governance, financing, resource generation and service delivery. As a case study, we analysed the political manifestos of all Portuguese parties with parliamentary representation ahead of the election in March 2024. We calculated the share of measures per health system function for individual political manifestos and identified potential gaps in the health policy debate. When required, we used additional classification criteria and local expertise on political and institutional knowledge.

Wealth-related inequalities in self-reported health status are strong and persistent across countries. Our results suggest that there is meaningful variation across high-income countries in health-wealth dynamics that merits further investigation to better understand whether certain health or welfare systems are more equitable. They also highlight the need to consider social policy and wealth redistribution mechanisms as strategies for improving population health among the less wealthy, in the United States and elsewhere.

The articles in this issue highlight the importance of regular health systems performance assessment to inform policies that advance progress on health system objectives globally, and offer insights on associated data, methods and applications.

Using satisfaction ratings without nuanced approaches in value-based purchasing programmes may mask poor-quality interpersonal services, particularly for historically marginalized patients. Surveys should be designed to accurately capture true levels of dissatisfaction, ensuring that patient concerns are not hidden.

Heterogeneity in national SARS-CoV-2 infection surveillance capabilities may compromise global enumeration and tracking of COVID-19 cases and deaths and bias analyses of the pandemic’s tolls. Taking account of heterogeneity in data completeness may thus help clarify analyses of the relationship between COVID-19 outcomes and standard preparedness measures. Results support the pre-pandemic hypothesis that countries with greater pandemic preparedness capacities have larger SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality data completeness rates and lower COVID-19 disease burdens. More high-quality data of COVID-19 impact based on direct measurement are needed.