Although eliminating financial barriers to care is a necessary condition for improving access to health services, it is not sufficient. Given the contrasting health systems with regard to financing and organization of health insurance in the United States and Canada, there is a long history of comparing these countries. We extend the empirical studies on the Canadian and US health systems by comparing access to ambulatory care as measured by hospitalization rates for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) in Montreal and New York City. We find that, in New York, ACSC rates were more than twice as high (12.6 per 1000 population) as in Montreal (4.8 per 1000 population). After controlling for age, sex, and number of diagnoses, significant differences in ACSC rates are present in both cities, but are more pronounced in New York. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that universal, first-dollar health insurance coverage has contributed to lower ACSC rates in Montreal than New York. However, Montreal’s surprisingly low ACSC rate calls for further research.

There are significant barriers to accessing health and social care services in Ireland including high user charges, long waits and limited availability of some services. While a number of reform proposals have committed to improving access to health care, implementation of these proposals has been limited. The aim of this paper is to identify and discuss policy implementation failures concerned with improving access to health and social care services in Ireland. Four potential reasons for the repeated failure to implement stated reform proposals are identified including a failure to identify and address the practicalities of implementation, competing health care demands, the political cycle and stakeholder resistance. While there has been a shift in Irish health care policy documents in the last 10 years with increasing emphasis on ensuring access to health care based on need rather than ability to pay, a repeated failure to implement the proposed reforms raises questions as to whether there is a real commitment to improving access to health care.

The cost of clinical negligence claims continues to rise, despite efforts to reduce this now ageing burden to the National Health Service (NHS) in England. From a welfarist perspective, reforms are needed to reduce avoidable harm to patients and to settle claims fairly for both claimants and society. Uncertainty in the estimation of quanta of damages, better known as financial settlements, is an important yet poorly characterised driver of societal outcomes. This reflects wider limitations to evidence informing clinical negligence policy, which has been discussed in recent literature. There is an acute need for practicable, evidence-based solutions that address clinical negligence issues, and these should complement long-standing efforts to improve patient safety. Using 15 claim cases from one NHS Trust between 2004 and 2016, the quality of evidence informing claims was appraised using methods from evidence-based medicine. Most of the evidence informing clinical negligence claims was found to be the lowest quality possible (expert opinion). The extent to which the quality of evidence represents a normative deviance from scientific standards is discussed. To address concerns about the level of uncertainty involved in deriving quanta, we provide five recommendations for medico-legal stakeholders that are designed to reduce avoidable bias and correct potential market failures.

The assumption according to which ill individuals can be replaced at work that underpins the ‘friction cost method’ (FCM) to value productivity costs has been primarily discussed within the framework of cost-utility analysis. This paper investigates the consequences of this assumption for cost-benefit analysis (CBA). It makes three contributions. First, it provides the first analytical account of the overall consequences of ill worker replacement on social welfare and it analyzes the associated compensation effects within a CBA framework. Second, it highlights a double counting problem that arises when ill worker replacement is assumed in the CBA of life-saving health care programs. To the best of our knowledge, no satisfactory solution to this problem has yet been provided in the literature. Third, this paper suggests and discusses two original ways to address this double counting issue. One consists in adjusting value of a statistical life estimations for the well-being provided by future incomes. Another possibility lies in the estimation of marginal rates of substitution between health and wealth so as to directly monetize the value of life over and above consumption. We show that both solutions raise unresolved questions that should be addressed in future research to enable appropriate use of the FCM in CBA.

The passage of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has opened a policy window for the establishment of an independent Medicaid agency for the Navajo Nation. This article explores several policy options to improve health care services for Native Americans. Although there is a lack of scholarly research on the impact of healthcare reform and the effectiveness of current health care programs for American Indians, policymakers should utilize evidence-based research to inform policy decisions.

Despite the acceleration in the use of digital health technologies across different aspects of the healthcare system, the full potential of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) arising from the technologies is not being utilised in decision-making. We examine current national efforts and future opportunities to systematically use RWD and RWE in decision-making in five countries (Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom), and then develop a framework for promotion of the systematic use of RWD and RWE. A review assesses current national efforts, complemented with a three-round consensus-building exercise among an international group of experts (n1 = 44, n2 = 24, n3 = 24) to derive key principles. We find that Estonia and Finland have invested and developed digital health-related policies for several years; Germany and Italy are the more recent arrivals, while the United Kingdom falls somewhere in the middle. Opportunities to promote the systematic use of RWD and RWE were identified for each country. Eight building blocks principles were agreed through consensus, relating to policy scope, institutional role and data collection. Promoting post-market surveillance and digital health technology vigilance ought to rely on clarity in scope and data collection with consensus reached on eight principles to leverage RWD and RWE.

Multimorbid patients who enter English NHS hospitals are frequently subject to care pathways designed to assess, diagnose and treat single medical conditions. Opportunities are thereby lost to offer patients more holistic, person-centred care. Hospital organisations elsewhere are known to use in-hospital, multi-specialty, integrated clinical care (ICC) to overcome this problem. This perspective piece aims to critically discuss barriers to implementing this form of ICC in the English NHS focusing on six key areas: information technologies, the primary–secondary care interface, internal hospital processes, finance, workload, professional roles and behaviours. Integrated care programmes currently underway are largely focused on macro (system) and meso (organisational) levels. A micro (clinical) level ICC, offering highly coordinated multispecialty expertise to multimorbid hospital patients could fill an important gap in the current care pathways.

Voluntary private health insurance (VHI) has generally been of limited importance in national health service-type health care systems, especially in the Nordic countries. During the last decades however, an increase in VHI uptake has taken place in the region. Critics of this development argue that voluntary health insurance can undermine support for public health care, while proponents contend that increased private funding for health services could relieve strained public health care systems. Using data from Sweden, this study investigates empirically how voluntary health insurance affects the public health care system. The results of the study indicate that the public Swedish health care system is fairly resilient to the impact of voluntary health insurance with regards to support for the tax-based funding. No difference between insurance holders and non-holders was found in willingness to finance public health care through taxes. A slight unburdening effect on public health care use was observed as VHI holders appeared to use public health care to a lesser extent than those without an insurance. However, a majority of the insurance holders continued to use the public health care system, indicating only a modest substitution effect.

This study contributes to the sparse literature on differences between public and private primary care practices (PCCs). The purpose was to explore if differences in performance and characteristics between public and PCCs persist over time in a welfare market with patient choice and provider competition, where public and private providers operate under similar conditions. The analysis is based on data from a national patient survey and administrative registries in a large Swedish region, covering PCC observations in 2010 and 2019, i.e., the year after and 10 years after introducing choice and competition in the region. The findings suggest that differences across owner types tend to decrease over time in welfare markets. Differences in patients' experiences, PCC size, patient mix and the division of labour have decreased or disappeared between 2010 and 2019. There were small but significant differences in process measures of quality in 2019; public PCCs complied better with prescription guidelines. While the results demonstrate a convergence between public and private PCCs in regards to their characteristics and performance, differences in patients' experiences in regards to socioeconomic conditions persisted. Such unwarranted variation calls for continued attention from policy makers and further research about causes.

Public reporting of clinical performance is increasingly used in many countries to improve quality and enhance accountability of the health system. The assumption is that greater transparency will stimulate improvements by clinicians in response to peer pressure, patient choice or competition. The international diffusion of public reporting might suggest greater similarity between health systems. Alternatively, national and local contexts (including health system imperatives, professional power and organisational culture) might continue to shape its form and impact, implying continued divergence. The paper considers public reporting in the USA and England through the lens of Scott's ‘pillars’ institutional framework. The USA was arguably the first country to adopt public reporting systematically in the late 1980s. England is a more recent adopter; it is now being widely adopted through the National Health Service (NHS). Drawing on qualitative data from California and England, this paper compares the behavioural and policy responses to public reporting by health system stakeholders at micro, meso and macro levels and through the intersection of ideas, interests, institutions and individuals through. The interplay between the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars helps explain the observed patterns of on-going divergence.

What Works in Tackling Health Inequalities? Pathways, Policies and Practice through the Lifecourse S. Asthana and J. Halliday Bristol: Policy, Press, 2006

Health Action Zones: Partnerships for Health Equity M. Barnes, L. Bauld, M. Benzeval, K. Judge, M. Mackenzie, H. Sullivan Abingdon: Routledge, 2005

Health Inequality: An Introduction to Theories, Concepts and Methods M. Bartley Cambridge: Polity, 2004

Status Syndrome: How your Social Standing Directly Affects your Health and Life Expectancy M. Marmot London: Bloomsbury, 2004

These four texts on health inequalities are all very different books written by leading commentators with different academic backgrounds. This review will concentrate on the policy perspective that may be of most interest to many readers of this journal. It is also arguably the Achilles heel of the health inequalities literature. According to policy makers, much current research on health inequalities was of little use to policy making, and public health researchers have been criticized for political naivety, for lacking understanding of how policy is made, and for having unrealistic expectations (Petticrew et al., 2004: 815–816). Similarly, Klein (2003) points to the problems of ‘making policy in a fog’. The first two texts under review focus on policy and are written by policy analysts.

The scarcity of medical resources is widely recognized, and therefore priority setting is inevitable. This study examines whether Portuguese healthcare professionals (physicians vs nurses): (i) share the moral guidance proposed by ethicists and (ii) attitudes toward prioritization criteria vary among individual and professional characteristics. A sample of 254 healthcare professionals were confronted with hypothetical prioritization scenarios involving two patients distinguished by personal or health characteristics. Descriptive statistics and parametric analyses were performed to evaluate and compare the adherence of both groups of healthcare professionals regarding 10 rationing criteria: waiting time, treatment prognosis measured in life expectancy and quality of life, severity of health conditions measured in pain and immediate risk of dying, age discrimination measured in favoring the young over older and favoring the youngest over the young, merit evaluated positively or negatively, and parenthood. The findings show a slight adherence to the criteria. Waiting time and patient pain were the conditions considered fairer by respondents in contrast with the ethicists normative. Preferences for distributive justice vary by professional group and among participants with different political orientations, rationing experience, years of experience, and level of satisfaction with the NHS. Decision-makers should consider the opinion of ethicists, but also those of healthcare professionals to legitimize explicit guidelines.

Medicare shifted the emphasis for mental health care into outpatient psychiatric wings connected to general hospitals and away from large custodial facilities that had been at the centre of the mental health system for decades. The shift to care in the community expanded the patient population, and arguably improved mental health care for many individuals who could now seek a variety of outpatient services rather than succumb to long-stay institutionalization. However, this shift also introduced new challenges as patients were increasingly expected to take responsibility for their own health care plans, whether that involved doctors’ appointments, drug regimens, or the need to find sheltered employment, safe housing and a social support network. Analysing first-hand experiences suggests that despite the need for clinical care at times, the major challenges to independence are political and economic. In this paper, I examine some of these tradeoffs and consider some of the historical lessons for continued discussions on public policy in the mental health care arena.

Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage [UHC; World Health Organization (WHO), 2014] is to be welcomed because tackling the relationship between cost-effectiveness and fairness has been given too little attention in policy-making. The consensus that universal coverage is a good thing quickly disperses as the concept is translated into working national policies and local delivery processes. As Weale (2014) and Rumbold and Wilson (2014) point out, seeking practical solutions can lead to the re-exploration of previous givens and result in unexpected ethical and philosophical consequences. While the basic premise underlying the discussion on the ethics of resource concurs with the view that equity is always at odds with efficiency, this is not inevitable as the authors of the report point out in their analysis – a view more fully explored by Culyer (2006). The present report is a welcome attempt to reconcile, as countries progress to UHC, ethical norms with the reality of setting priorities, involving what to pay for and under what circumstances.