This article studies the implementation of the European Union (EU)’s Patients’ Rights Directive in Germany and Norway. The objective of the Directive was to allow EU member states to have a say in the regulatory work, ensure predictability and uniformity in the application of EU rules on cross-border care, and enhance a move towards EU harmonisation in this area. So far, the implementation processes in Norway and Germany have mixed results regarding the likelihood of achieving uniformity and harmonisation. Although the Directive has had convergent effects on certain areas of cross-border care, such as setting up National Contact Points and providing patients with the basic right to treatment abroad, implementation also shows divergent patterns. In both countries, adapting to EU rules has strengthened patients’ rights to choose freely among health-service providers in a wider European health-service market. However, due to legal discretion and country-specific institutions within which the new rules are applied, divergent patterns prevail.

In Belgium and France, physicians can charge a supplementary fee on top of the tariff set by the mandatory basic health insurance scheme. In both countries, the supplementary fee system is under pressure because of financial sustainability concerns and a lack of added value for the patient. Expenditure on supplementary fees is increasing much faster than total health expenditure. So far, measures taken to curb this trend have not been successful. For certain categories of physicians, supplementary fees represent one-third of total income. For patients, however, the added value of supplementary fees is not that clear. Supplementary fees can buy comfort and access to physicians who refuse to treat patients who are not willing to pay supplementary fees. Perceived quality of care plays an important role in patients’ willingness to pay supplementary fees. Today, there is no evidence that physicians who charge supplementary fees provide better quality of care than physicians who do not. However, linking supplementary fees to objectively proven quality of care and limiting access to top quality care to patients able and willing to pay supplementary fees might not be socially acceptable in many countries. Our conclusion is that supplementary physicians’ fees are not sustainable.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the UK's primary health care priority-setting body, has traditionally described its decisions as being informed by ‘social value judgements’ about how resources should be allocated across society. This paper traces the intellectual history of this term and suggests that, in NICE's adoption of the idea of the ‘social value judgement’, we are hearing the echoes of welfare economics at a particular stage of its development, when logical positivism provided the basis for thinking about public policy choice. As such, it is argued that the term offers an overly simplistic conceptualisation of NICE's normative approach and contributes to a situation in which NICE finds itself without the necessary language fully and accurately to articulate its basis for decision-making. It is suggested that the notion of practical public reasoning, based on reflection about coherent principles of action, might provide a better characterisation of the enterprise in which NICE is, or hopes to be, engaged.

The election of Donald Trump, coupled with the retention of Republican majorities in the US House of Representatives and Senate, raises questions about future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the structure and funding of the country’s public health insurance programs – Medicare, Medicaid and the Child Health Insurance Program – and the direction of health policy in the United States, more generally. Political scientists are not renowned for their capacity to predict the future and many of those who forecast election results have received criticism in recent weeks for failing to predict the Trump victory. While the future is uncertain, it is possible for social scientists to offer a ‘conditional causal analysis’ about the future. This essay is an effort to think about the likely shape of American health care between now and the next US presidential election.

Amidst the NHS’s (National Health Service) success lies its major weakness, although one that Klein overlooks in his reflections on the NHS as it approaches 70. The focus on, and investment in, curing ill-health has been at the expense of attending to the public’s overall health and well-being. This preoccupation poses a greater threat to the NHS’s future than privatisation. Despite the weakness having been diagnosed decades ago, redressing the imbalance has proved stubbornly hard to achieve. Rhetoric has not been translated into reality. Yet, we may be on the cusp of a tipping point where in order to ensure a sustainable NHS, and one that is capable of meeting the 21st century challenges facing it, there is a renewed and overdue interest in promoting health and well-being in communities. But for this to succeed, the NHS will need to embrace its bete noire, local government.

Part of the controversy surrounding competition and health care stems from the complexity connected with delineating the applicability of competition law – encompassing both the provisions governing anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominance and the state-aid rules. Cases determined at the European Union (EU) level within the past 30 years have developed a broad framework, and notable trends have emerged – for example, a distinction between health care providers and managing bodies (purchasers). The former have been subject to an ‘abstract’ test and the latter to a more sophisticated ‘concrete’ test. In this paper, we chart the development of the EU courts’ approach to developing the ‘undertaking’ concept in health care and examine the current EU competition law framework with a view to identifying future directions. van de Gronden has recently identified a ‘three-prong’ test of exemption from competition law in connection with the recent CEPPB case: firstly, where the supply of services is predominantly dependent upon public financing; secondly, the public funding aims to achieve a public interest goal and thirdly, the activities concerned are closely related to this public interest goal. We examine this test in a health care context, drawing on our findings regarding Dutch competition reforms.

The privatisation of provision and the emerging privatisation of funding, manifested in the rapid rise of private health insurance, are the most obvious signs that the universal, Swedish health system is gradually weakened. Meanwhile, the private welfare industry creates a neoliberal Newspeak where the burdening effects of the private insurance system on public healthcare are said to be unburdening, and where every step away from the principles of a universal welfare model is said to be in line with the principles of a universal welfare model. The language spoken by the private welfare industry spills over into authorities, journalists and scholars. In this article, I discuss, problematise and partially reject two research questions – Does VHI unburden the public health care system? and Are VHI holders less supportive of funding public health care? – where the authors fail to place development in the context of increased inequality and declining tax ratio, and where they use the welfare industry's definitions invented to blur the consequences of a parallel health system.

In health care systems based upon managed competition, insurers are expected to negotiate with providers about price and quality of care. The Dutch experience, however, shows that quality plays a limited role in insurer–provider negotiations. It has been suggested that this is partly due to a lack of cooperation among insurers. This raises the question whether cooperation amongst insurers is a precondition or a substitute for quality-based competition. To answer this question, we mapped insurers' cooperating activities to enhance quality of care using a six-stage continuum. The first three stages (defining, designing and measuring quality indicators) may enhance competition, whereas the next three stages (setting benchmarks, steering patients and selective contracting) may reduce it. We investigated which types of insurer cooperation currently take place in the Netherlands. Additionally, we organized focus groups among insurers, providers and other stakeholders to examine their perceptions on insurer cooperation. We find that all stakeholders see advantages of cooperation amongst insurers in the first stages of the continuum and sometimes cooperate in this domain. Cooperation in the next stages is almost absent and more controversial because without adequate quality information, it is difficult to assess whether the benefits outweigh the cost associated with reduced competition.

Chronic diseases are highly important for the future level and distribution of health and well-being in western societies. Consequently, it seems pertinent to assess not only efficiency of chronic care but also its impact on health equity. However, operationalisation of health equity has proven a challenging task. Challenges include identifying a relevant and measurable evaluative space. Various schools of thought in health economics have identified different outcomes of interest for equity assessment, with capabilities as a proposed alternative to more conventional economic conceptualisations. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the conceptualisation of health equity evaluation in the context of chronic disease management. We do this by firstly introducing an equity enquiry framework incorporating the capabilities approach. Secondly, we demonstrate the application and relevance of this framework through a content analysis of equity-related principles and aims in national chronic disease management guidelines and the national diabetes action plan in Denmark. Finally, we discuss how conceptualisations of equity focused on capabilities may be used in evaluation by scoping relevant operationalisations. A promising way forward in the context of chronic care evaluation may emerge from a combination of concepts of capabilities developed in economics, health sciences and psychology.

Rising suicide rates have been identified as a social problem in several Western countries. The application of a Welfare Economics argument justifies a role for policy that reduces the welfare impact of suicide, whereas the measurement of that impact can inform policy making. Two dimensions of the concept can be measured: the social loss from suicide, and the inequality in the distribution of that loss. In this study, an alternative measure of suicide to the conventional suicide headcount, viz. the potential years of life lost (PYLL), is employed. The PYLL measure is a proxy measure of the social impact of suicide, and involves the concept of ‘premature’ loss of life. The PYLL also lends itself to inequality measurement. We apply the approach to inequality measurement of health phenomena that was pioneered in the 1980s by Jacques Silber and Julian Le Grand, in a literature now described as measuring health inequality per se. The empirical part of the paper statistically estimates equations on Australian suicide data for the period 1907–2003 and determines the trends in the social loss from suicide and the inequality of its age distribution. Some illustrative examples assist in interpreting the welfare impact of suicide measured both ways, by the headcount rate and the PYLL rate.

This contribution examines the responses of five health systems in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Denmark, Germany, Israel, Spain and Sweden. The aim is to understand to what extent this crisis response of these countries was resilient. The study focuses on hospital care structures, considering both existing capacity before the pandemic and the management and expansion of capacity during the crisis. Evaluation criteria include flexibility in the use of existing resources and response planning, as well as the ability to create surge capacity. Data were collected from country experts using a structured questionnaire. Main findings are that not only the total number but also the availability of hospital beds is critical to resilience, as is the ability to mobilise (highly) qualified personnel. Indispensable for rapid capacity adjustment is the availability of data. Countries with more centralised hospital care structures, more sophisticated concepts for providing specialised services and stronger integration of the inpatient and outpatient sectors have clear structural advantages. A solid digital infrastructure is also conducive. Finally, a centralised governance structure is crucial for flexibility and adaptability. In decentralised systems, robust mechanisms to coordinate across levels are important to strengthen health care system resilience in pandemic situations and beyond.

Current investments in preventive lifestyle interventions are relatively low, despite the significant impact of unhealthy behaviour on population health. This raises the question of whether the criteria used in reimbursement decisions about healthcare interventions put preventive interventions at a disadvantage. In this paper, we highlight the decision-making framework used in the Netherlands to delineate the basic benefits package. Important criteria in that framework are ‘necessity’ and ‘cost-effectiveness’. Several normative choices need to be made, and these choices can have an important impact on the evaluation of lifestyle interventions, especially when making these criteria operational and quantifiable. Moreover, the implementation of the decision-making framework may prove to be difficult for lifestyle interventions. Improvements of the decision-making framework in the Netherlands are required to guarantee sound evaluations of lifestyle interventions aimed at improving health.

This short commentary on Oliver’s review of incentives relates that review to four models of governance: Trust and Altruism (T&A), Choice and Competition (C&C), Naming and Shaming (N&S) and Targets and Terror (T&T).

In this article we consider the conclusions and recommendations of the World Health Organisation’s report Making Fair Choices from a philosophical perspective. In particular we reflect on the report’s return to substantive claims about justice in the allocation of health care resources and its argument that certain trade-offs are ‘generally unacceptable’.