Austrian National Public Health Institute, Stubenring 6, 1010 Vienna, Austria.
European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.
Health Policy. 2022 May;126(5):476-484. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.09.011. Epub 2021 Sep 29.
Countries with social health insurance (SHI) systems display some common defining characteristics - pluralism of actors and strong medical associations - that, in dealing with crisis times, may allow for common learnings. This paper analyses health system responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in eight countries representative of SHI systems in Europe (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Switzerland). Data collection and analysis builds on the methodology and content in the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) up to November 2020. We find that SHI funds were, in general, neither foreseen as major stakeholders in crisis management, nor were they represented in crisis management teams. Further, responsibilities in some countries shifted from SHI funds to federal governments. The overall organisation and governance of SHI systems shaped how countries responded to the challenges of the pandemic. For instance, coordinated ambulatory care often helped avoid overburdening hospitals. Decentralisation among local authorities may however represent challenges with the coordination of policies, i.e. coordination costs. At the same time, bottom-up self-organisation of ambulatory care providers is supported by decentralised structures. Providers also increasingly used teleconsultations, which may remain part of standard practice. It is recommended to involve SHI funds actively in crisis management and in preparing for future crisis to increase health system resilience.
具有社会医疗保险(SHI)制度的国家表现出一些共同的特征 - 参与者的多元化和强大的医疗协会 - 这在应对危机时期可能允许共同学习。本文分析了 COVID-19 大流行期间八个具有代表性的欧洲 SHI 系统国家(奥地利、比利时、法国、德国、卢森堡、荷兰、斯洛文尼亚和瑞士)的卫生系统应对措施。数据收集和分析基于 COVID-19 卫生系统应对监测器(HSRM)的方法和内容,截至 2020 年 11 月。我们发现,一般来说,SHI 基金既不是危机管理的主要利益相关者,也没有代表参加危机管理团队。此外,一些国家的责任从 SHI 基金转移到联邦政府。SHI 系统的整体组织和治理方式塑造了各国应对大流行挑战的方式。例如,协调的门诊护理通常有助于避免医院负担过重。然而,地方当局之间的权力下放可能会给政策协调带来挑战,即协调成本。与此同时,门诊服务提供者的自下而上的自我组织得到了权力下放结构的支持。提供者还越来越多地使用远程咨询,这可能仍然是标准做法的一部分。建议在危机管理中积极吸收 SHI 基金,并为未来的危机做好准备,以提高卫生系统的弹性。