Effective policymaking in health care systems begins with a clear typology of the terminology – need, demand, supply and access to care – and their interrelationships. However, the terms are contested and their meaning is rarely stated explicitly. This paper offers working definitions of need, demand and supply. We draw on the international literature and use a Venn diagram to explain the terms. We then define access to care, reviewing alternative and competing definitions from the literature. We conclude by discussing potential applications of our conceptual framework to help to understand the interrelationships and trade-offs between need, demand, supply and access in health care.

Health system governance has been receiving increasing attention in health system research since the 1980s. The contemporary challenges that the German health system is faced with are often closely linked to governance issues. Although Germany has the highest health expenditure as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the European Union (EU), the spending on healthcare is out of proportion to the health outcomes of the population. The reason for this lies mainly in the complexity of the German health system which is hard to steer due to several administrative levels in the country and numerous policy actors to whom the decision-making power on healthcare provision is delegated. In this paper, we present the results of focus group discussions on governance and build upon the insights gained through the Neustart project of the Robert Bosch Foundation. Based on an internationally recognised health governance framework from the World Health Organization (WHO), experts who work in, on or for the German health system addressed health governance challenges. They provided evidence-based recommendations for the new legislative period (2021-2025) on transparency, accountability, participation, integrity and capacity of the German health system.

State Medical Aid is a public health insurance program that allows undocumented immigrants with low financial resources to access health care services for free. However, the low take-up rate of this program might threaten its efficiency. The purpose of this study is therefore to provide the determinants of such a low take-up rate. To this end, we rely on the Premier Pas survey. This is an original representative sample of undocumented immigrants attending places of assistance to vulnerable populations in France. Determinants of State Medical Aid take-up are analyzed through probit and Cox modeling. The results show that only 51% of those who are eligible for the State Medical Aid program are actually covered, and this proportion is higher among women than among men. The length of stay in France is the most important determinant of take-up. It is worth noting that State Medical Aid take-up is not associated with chronic diseases or functional limitations and is negatively associated with poor mental health. There is, therefore, mixed evidence of health selection into the program. Informational barriers and vulnerabilities experienced by undocumented immigrants are likely to explain this low take-up.

Chronic diseases are major causes of death and reduction in the quality of life worldwide, and their prevalence is expected to rise due to changing demographics. Disease management programmes (DMPs) have been presented as a policy response to challenges of care coordination for such chronic diseases. This paper investigates the implementation of DMPs in a National Health Care system in the Nordic region using type II diabetes as an example. DMPs are detailed descriptions of the sequence and responsibilities for diagnostic, treatment, rehabilitation and prevention procedures. The paper applies a systemic implementation perspective to provide detailed analysis of implementation progress, issues and concerns. The implementation analysis shows that the framework of DMP has facilitated the development of new practices and attention to the roles that each of the stakeholders are playing within the service delivery. Many new initiatives contribute to improved coordination and overall management of the Type 2 diabetes (T2DB) population. Yet, there are also several cross-cutting challenges that are affecting the implementation process.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an ultimate challenge for health systems as a whole rather than just single sectors (e.g. hospital care). Particularly, interface management between health system sectors and cooperation among stakeholders turned out to be crucial for an adequate crisis response. Dealing with such interfaces, it is argued in the literature, demands from health care systems to become resilient. One way to analyse this is to focus on the ways in which bottlenecks in health systems are dealt with during the pandemic. This paper investigates six bottlenecks, including overburdened public health agencies, neglected nursing homes and insufficient testing capacities that have been encountered in the health systems of Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands during the pandemic. Based on empirical findings we identify and critically discuss preliminary lessons in terms of health system resilience, an increasingly popular theoretical concept that frames crises as an opportunity for health system renewal. We argue that in practice health system resilience is hindered by path dependencies of national health systems and, owed to the crisis, interim policies that lack ambition for broader reforms.

It is known that social inequities result in health disparities in outcomes, highlighted in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This commentary discusses the actionable initiatives that have been implemented to address social inequities in healthcare in the United States. The publicly available social needs screening tools and International Classification of Disease Systems-10 Z codes for social determinants of health are introduced. In this context, policies, health system strategies and the larger role of implementation science in recognizing and alleviating the social needs are discussed.

This study examines the literature on learning lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to make a conceptual and empirical contribution. The conceptual contribution suggests a simplified policy transfer framework for learning lessons from the proliferation of approaches involving an expanding and confusing mix of hypotheses, questions, criteria, domains, constructs, factors and criteria. This is then used to review the literature of lessons from COVID-19. This fuses the three reasons for transfer failure and the context-mechanism- outcome configuration of realist approaches to suggest three simple criteria of informed transfer (outcomes); complete transfer (mechanisms); and appropriate transfer (context). The empirical contribution suggests that it is difficult to learn lessons from the existing literature. The conceptual framework suggests that lessons about successful transfer involve a clear idea of policy success, understanding how the policy instrument or mechanism links with success in the original context, and how ‘fungible’ it is to the new context. Put another way, the ‘COVID lessons industry’ may itself need to learn that lessons about policy transfer should be informed, complete and appropriate.

In the article, ‘Learning Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic’, Powell (2022) rightly implies that there is a profusion of confusion in the ‘industry’ which has grown up around lesson-learning from the pandemic. His contribution sets out a helpful framework for classifying or making attempts at lesson-learning. He combines the tripartite classification of inadequate approaches to policy-learning and policy transfer developed 30 years ago by Dolowitz and Marsh (‘uninformed-incomplete-inappropriate’), which he inverts to produce a classification of approaches which are informed, complete and appropriate, with the framework of ‘outcome-mechanism-context’ from realistic evaluation. (I use the term realistic rather than realist, as the latter implies an epistemological stance as opposed to what was intended, which is that evaluation takes account of complexity in a realistic manner.) This produces a classification, and possibly an ‘ideal type’, of informed outcomes, complete mechanisms and appropriate context. Powell rightly implies that no overall conclusion is available from the literature reviewed. He does however imply that different approaches may work in different settings. This is true in one sense but misleading in another. This commentary argues that such ‘relativism’ is not only dangerous in practice but mistaken in theory.