There is a growing recognition of the importance of evidence to support allocative policy decisions in health care. This study is based on interviews with politicians in four regional health authorities in Sweden. Drawing on theories of strategic use of knowledge, the article analyses how politicians perceive and make use of expert knowledge represented by the National Guidelines, embracing both a scientific and a political rationale. As health care is an organisation with a dual basis for legitimacy – at the same time a political and an action organisation – it affects knowledge use. We investigate how the context of health care priority setting influences the conditions for knowledge use among regional politicians. Our findings illustrate the dilemma of political decision-makers and how they prefer to use expert knowledge. The politicians use this policy instrument in a legitimising fashion, as it will fit into the current political debate on more equal care. As an instrument for resource allocation the politicians noted that ‘facts’ per se could not provide them with a sufficient basis for legitimising their governing of health care. The dualistic organisational context makes knowledge important as a political weapon in negotiations with the medical profession.

Previous evidence suggests that members of the public value life saving services differently when they are for patients with a pre-existing permanent disability and when they are for patients who become disabled at the onset of treatment – for example, as a result of treatment that is not entirely effective. However, the valuation of services in these two cases has also been found to differ with the order in which they are presented in a population survey. This casts doubt upon the validity of the results and leaves unresolved the nature of the public’s true preferences. The study reported here had three main objectives: (i) to determine the considered, underlying preferences of a sample of the Australian public with respect to the treatment of the permanently disabled and chronically ill, (ii) to gain insight into the reasons for respondent’s distributive preferences and (iii) to eliminate or significantly reduce the order effect. Eight semi-structured, small-group discussions were held with 66 members of the public in Victoria, Australia. Order effects were effectively eliminated. The study found substantial support among participants for the equal treatment of the permanently disabled and chronically ill regardless of when the problem commenced.

While moving towards unified social health insurance (SHI) is often a politically popular policy reform in countries where rapid expansion in health insurance coverage has given rise to the segmentation of SHI systems as different SHI schemes were rolled out to serve different populations, the potential impacts of reform on service utilisation and health costs have not been systematically studied. Using data from the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), we compared the mean costs incurred for both inpatient and outpatient care under different health insurance schemes, and the impact of different SHI schemes on treatment utilisation and health care costs using a two-part model. Our results show that Urban Employee Medical Insurance, which offers the most generous benefits, incurs the highest total costs prior to reimbursement when compared to other SHI schemes. Our analysis also shows that utilisation of SHI did not show significant reduction in out-of-pocket payments for outpatients. We argue that, unless effective measures are introduced to deal with perverse provider payment incentives, the move towards a unified system with more generous benefits may usher in a new wave of cost escalation for health care systems in China.

Published works on health insurance tend to focus on program design and its impact, neglecting the implementation process that links the two and affects outcomes. This paper examines the National Health Insurance [Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY)] in India with the objective of assessing the role of implementation structures and processes in shaping performance. The central question that the paper addresses is: why does the performance of RSBY vary across states despite similar program design? Using a comparative case study approach analyzing the program’s functioning in three states, it finds the answer in the differences in governance of implementation. The unavoidable gaps in design of health care program allow abundant scope for opportunistic behavior on the part of different stakeholders. The study finds that the performance of the program, as a result, depends on the extent to which the governance mechanism is able to contain and channel opportunistic behavior during implementation. By opening up the black box of implementation, the paper contributes to improving the performance of national health insurance in India and elsewhere.

As a growing number of countries implement, or announce plans to introduce, a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax, this paper explores the public health rationale for such a tax and provides an overview of the international normative and policy instruments supporting the introduction of fiscal measures on sugary drinks. After examining parallels between the legal arguments raised by the food and beverage industry in opposition to SSB taxes and those raised by the tobacco industry in response to tobacco control measures, this paper draws four key lessons that will assist countries to design effective and robust SSB tax measures and counter food and beverage industry opposition: regulatory distinctions in tax coverage should be based on bona fide, evidence-based reasoning; evidence-based measures need to be tailored to a country’s public health objectives as part of a comprehensive strategy to address unhealthy diet consumption; procedural requirements and due process should be observed in the drafting and implementation of the measure; and regulatory space exists within domestic constitutions, laws and international trade and investment agreements recognising the sovereign right of states to regulate in the interests of public health.

In January 2006, the Spanish government enacted a tobacco control law that banned smoking in bars and restaurants, with exceptions depending on the floor space of the premises. In January 2011, further legislation in this area was adopted, removing these exceptions. We analyse the effect produced on cigarette sales by these two bans. We approach this problem using an interrupted time series analysis while accounting for the potential effects of autocorrelation and seasonality. The data source used was the official data on legal sales of tobacco in Spain, from January 2000 to December 2015 (excluding the Canary Islands and the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla). As confounder variables, we use the log-transformed average prices for manufactured and hand-rolled cigarettes (or the average minimum excise tax as a proxy), and log-transformed real-household disposable income. The implementation of a total smoke-free ban in Spain was associated with an immediate reduction in cigarette sales between 9% to 11%. In contrast, in the period immediately following the partial ban, no such reduction was detected, beyond the trend already present. Our results indicate that, in Spain, partial bans on smoking in public places failed, and that only a total tobacco ban worked.