The Structure and Financing of Health Care Systems Affected How Providers Coped With COVID-19

Using best-worst scaling to inform policy decisions in Africa: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Stakeholder engagement in policy decision-making is critical to inform required trade-offs, especially in low-and-middle income settings, such as many African countries. Discrete-choice experiments are now commonly used to engage stakeholders in policy decisions, but other methods such as best-worst scaling (BWS), a theory-driven prioritization technique, could be equally important. We sought to document and explore applications of BWS to assess stakeholder priorities in the African context to bring attention to BWS as a method and to assess how and why it is being used to inform policy.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review of published applications of BWS for prioritization in Africa.

RESULTS

Our study identified 35 studies, with the majority published in the past four years. BWS has most commonly been used in agriculture (43%) and health (34%), although its broad applicability is demonstrated through use in fields influencing social and economic determinants of health, including business, environment, and transportation. Published studies from eastern, western, southern, and northern Africa include a broad range of sample sizes, design choices, and analytical approaches. Most studies are of high quality and high policy relevance. Several studies cited benefits of using BWS, with many of those citing potential limitations rather than observed limitations in their study.

CONCLUSIONS

Growing use of the method across the African continent demonstrates its feasibility and utility, recommending it for consideration among researchers, program implementers, policy makers, and funders when conducting preference research to influence policy and improve health systems.

REGISTRATION

The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020209745).

Becoming Self Employed: Israeli Family Physicians' Push and Pull Factors

BACKGROUND

As primary care is an important infrastructure for the entire health system, the employment structure choices of family physicians-whether to work in a managed care organization or be self-employed, can impact all effectiveness parameters of healthcare: quality, access, health equity, patients' experiences, and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study is to assess the push and pull factors influencing family physicians' employment choices.

METHODS

This study employed a qualitative approach to explore the experiences of family physicians (FPs) who choose to work a self-employment practice. We conducted semi-structured interviews with twenty-seven self-employed FPs in Israel, selected through purposive and snowball sampling. The interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis followed thematic analysis framework. The analysis yielded 10 themes, which were organized into two categories: pull and push factors.

RESULTS

Pull factors, i.e., factors that attract family physicians to become self-employed, included professional self-fulfillment, higher income, professional and business autonomy, working with secretaries according to one's personal choice, designing the space of the clinic, and flexibility in working hours. Push factors, i.e., factors that demotivated family physicians to work under managed care and pushed them to choose self-employment included low control over the work environment, workload, decreased professional and organizational autonomy, managerial pressures on quality measures, engagement in marketing activities, and tensions with non-medical staff in the Health Maintenance Organization.

CONCLUSIONS

There are obvious implications of this work for Health Maintenance Organizations' policy makers. Balancing managerial pressure and tensions between family physicians and non-medical administration and ensuring suitable working conditions increased physicians' control over the work environment, and professional autonomy may decrease push factors and retain family physicians as Health Maintenance Organization-employed. Understanding pull factors may help to develop a strategy for maximizing cooperation with self-employed family physicians and reinforce physicians' linkage to the healthcare system's treatment objectives.

Association between characteristics of employing healthcare facilities and healthcare worker infection rates and psychosocial experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Healthcare facility characteristics, such as ownership, size, and location, have been associated with patient outcomes. However, it is not known whether the outcomes of healthcare workers are associated with the characteristics of their employing healthcare facilities, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This was an analysis of a nationwide registry of healthcare workers (the Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) registry). Participants were surveyed on their personal, employment, and medical characteristics, as well as our primary study outcomes of COVID-19 infection, access to personal protective equipment, and burnout. Participants from healthcare sites with at least ten respondents were included, and these sites were linked to American Hospital Association data to extract information about sites, including number of beds, teaching status, urban/rural location, and for-profit status. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate linear regression models for the unadjusted and adjusted associations between healthcare facility characteristics and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 8,941 healthcare workers from 97 clinical sites were included in the study. After adjustment for participant demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities, facility for-profit status was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis (aOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.02-3.03, p = .042). Micropolitan location was associated with decreased odds of COVID-19 infection after adjustment (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.24, 0.71, p = .002. For-profit facility status was associated with decreased odds of burnout after adjustment (aOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.98), p = .044).

CONCLUSIONS

For-profit status of employing healthcare facilities was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis but decreased odds of burnout after adjustment for demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities. Future research to understand the relationship between facility ownership status and healthcare outcomes is needed to promote wellbeing in the healthcare workforce.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The registry was prospectively registered: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (trial registration number) NCT04342806, submitted April 8, 2020.

Occupational well-being in medical workers in Inner Mongolia after the Normalized Epidemic Prevention and Control Strategy: A cross-sectional study

Little is known about the status of occupational well-being among the Chinese medical workers after the implementation of Normalized Epidemic Prevention and Control strategy as most studies are performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was designed to investigate the occupational well-being among the medical workers in our city in the COVID-19 after the release of Normalized Epidemic Prevention and Control Strategy since May 7, 2020 in mainland China. We included the medical workers involved in the front-line of COVID-19 that were randomly selected from 7 hospitals in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China. The occupational well-being among medical workers was evaluated using the modified occupational well-being scales and the symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) scale. Then Logistic regression analysis was given to identify the risk factors that may affect the occupational well-being among the medical workers. Our data showed that hospital type (p < 0.01), hospital grade (p < 0.01), marital status (p < 0.01) and monthly income (p < 0.01) were independent risk factors for the occupational well-being among the medical workers. Obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatization, phobic anxiety, depression and interpersonal sensitivity were risk factors for poor occupational well-being. Therefore, attention should be given to the occupational well-being of the medical workers. Meanwhile, appropriate measurements are necessary to improve their working quality.

Hospital Finances During the First Two Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From Washington State Hospitals

The COVID-19 pandemic created a broad array of challenges for hospitals. These challenges included restrictions on admissions and procedures, patient surges, rising costs of labor and supplies, and a disparate impact on already disadvantaged populations. Many of these intersecting challenges put pressure on hospitals' finances. There was concern that financial pressure would be particularly acute for hospitals serving vulnerable populations, including safety-net (SN) hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs). Using data from hospitals in Washington State, we examined changes in operating margins for SN hospitals, CAHs, and other acute care hospitals in 2020 and 2021. We found that the operating margins for all three categories of hospitals fell from 2019 to 2020, with SNs and CAHs sustaining the largest declines. During 2021, operating margins improved for all three hospital categories but SN operating margins still remained negative. Both changes in revenue and changes in expenses contributed to observed changes in operating margins. Our study is one of the first to describe how the financial effects of COVID-19 differed for SNs, CAHs, and other acute care hospitals over the first two years of the pandemic. Our results highlight the continuing financial vulnerability of SNs and demonstrate how the factors that contribute to profitability can shift over time.

Exploring the Economic Aspects of Hospitals: A Comprehensive Examination of Relevant Factors

Financial limitations in the hospital industry have the potential to exacerbate healthcare disparities, impede investments in cutting-edge medical treatments, as well as impair patient outcomes. The interdependent connection between a hospital economy and the general well-being of the community highlights the necessity of careful financial oversight and inventive healthcare policies. Effective collaboration among policymakers, healthcare administrators, and stakeholders is imperative in the development of sustainable economic models that give equal weight to fiscal prudence and optimal patient outcomes. This article aims to underscore the pivotal importance of strategic fund allocation guided by hospital administrators, accentuating several key initiatives capable of revolutionizing healthcare delivery and elevating the institution's stature within the medical community. The other important aspects discussed here are fund allocation in hospitals, the boom of online consultations, and emphasis on the use of sustainable and cost-effective modalities of energy.

Autoimmune encephalitis in a resource-limited public health setting: a case series analysis

BACKGROUND

 Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) consists of a group of acquired diseases that affect the central nervous system. A myriad of phenotypes may be present at the onset. Due to the heterogeneity of clinical presentations, it is difficult to achieve uniformity for the diagnostic and therapeutic processes and follow-up strategies.

OBJECTIVE

 To describe a series of patients diagnosed with AE in a resource-limited public hospital in southern Brazil and to analyze therapeutics and outcomes.

METHODS

 We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of patients diagnosed with AE at the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre from 2014 to 2022. Data collected included clinical presentation, neuroimaging, cerebrospinal fluid testings, electroencephalogram, autoantibodies, treatments, outcomes, follow-up time, degree of neurological impairment, and mortality.

RESULTS

 Data from 17 patients were retrieved. Eleven cases were classified as definite AE and 6 as possible AE. Autoantibodies were identified in 9 patients. Timing for diagnosis was impacted by the high costs associated with autoantibody testing. Most patients became functionally dependent (82.4%) and most survivors remained with autoimmune-associated epilepsy (75%). Five patients died during hospitalization, and one after a 26-month of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

 In this resource-limited hospital, patients with AE had a worse clinical outcome than that previously described in the literature. Development of epilepsy during follow-up and mortality were greater, whilst functional outcome was inferior. Autoantibody testing was initially denied in most patients, which impacted the definitive diagnosis and the use of second-line therapies.

Improving Pathways to Care for Ethnic Minority Communities

It is well established that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on ethnic minority communities and has worsened existing health inequalities experienced by these populations globally. Individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds have not only been more likely to become infected with COVID-19 throughout the pandemic, but they have also higher risk of adverse symptoms and death following infection. Factors responsible for these discrepancies are wide reaching and encompass all aspects of the social determinants of health (SDoH). Although always an area of concern among healthcare professionals, barriers to health care experienced by ethnic minority populations became a more pertinent issue during the COVID-19 pandemic when all individuals required sufficient and sustained access to a healthcare system (whether this be for COVID-19 testing, vaccination or treatment). These healthcare barriers exacerbated the increased COVID-19 burden experienced by minority populations and will continue to detrimentally impact the health of these populations during future COVID-19 waves or indeed, future novel pandemics. This chapter aims to summarise the major healthcare barriers experienced by minority populations throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including COVID-19 prevention, vaccine rollout, care during hospitalisation and post-COVID care for long COVID patients. To end, this chapter will summarise lessons learned and future directions that need to be taken to improve health disparities and healthcare access for minority populations in relation to the COVID pandemic and beyond.

Health financing policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for universal health care: a case study of 15 countries

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic was a health emergency requiring rapid fiscal resource mobilisation to support national responses. The use of effective health financing mechanisms and policies, or lack thereof, affected the impact of the pandemic on the population, particularly vulnerable groups and individuals. We provide an overview and illustrative examples of health financing policies adopted in 15 countries during the pandemic, develop a framework for resilient health financing, and use this pandemic to argue a case to move towards universal health coverage (UHC).

METHODS

In this case study, we examined the national health financing policy responses of 15 countries, which were purposefully selected countries to represent all WHO regions and have a range of income levels, UHC index scores, and health system typologies. We did a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed articles, policy documents, technical reports, and publicly available data on policy measures undertaken in response to the pandemic and complemented the data obtained with 61 in-depth interviews with health systems and health financing experts. We did a thematic analysis of our data and organised key themes into a conceptual framework for resilient health financing.

FINDINGS

Resilient health financing for health emergencies is characterised by two main phases: (1) absorb and recover, where health systems are required to absorb the initial and subsequent shocks brought about by the pandemic and restabilise from them; and (2) sustain, where health systems need to expand and maintain fiscal space for health to move towards UHC while building on resilient health financing structures that can better prepare health systems for future health emergencies. We observed that five key financing policies were implemented across the countries-namely, use of extra-budgetary funds for a swift initial response, repurposing of existing funds, efficient fund disbursement mechanisms to ensure rapid channelisation to the intended personnel and general population, mobilisation of the private sector to mitigate the gaps in public settings, and expansion of service coverage to enhance the protection of vulnerable groups. Accountability and monitoring are needed at every stage to ensure efficient and accountable movement and use of funds, which can be achieved through strong governance and coordination, information technology, and community engagement.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggest that health systems need to leverage the COVID-19 pandemic as a window of opportunity to make health financing policies robust and need to politically commit to public financing mechanisms that work to prepare for future emergencies and as a lever for UHC.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The impact of COVID-19 on health financing in Kenya

Sudden shocks to health systems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic may disrupt health system functions. Health system functions may also influence the health system's ability to deliver in the face of sudden shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the impact of COVID-19 on the health financing function in Kenya, and how specific health financing arrangements influenced the health systems capacity to deliver services during the COVID-19 pandemic.We conducted a cross-sectional study in three purposively selected counties in Kenya using a qualitative approach. We collected data using in-depth interviews (n = 56) and relevant document reviews. We interviewed national level health financing stakeholders, county department of health managers, health facility managers and COVID-19 healthcare workers. We analysed data using a framework approach. Purchasing arrangements: COVID-19 services were partially subsidized by the national government, exposing individuals to out-of-pocket costs given the high costs of these services. The National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) adapted its enhanced scheme's benefit package targeting formal sector groups to include COVID-19 services but did not make any adaptations to its general scheme targeting the less well-off in society. This had potential equity implications. Public Finance Management (PFM) systems: Nationally, PFM processes were adaptable and partly flexible allowing shorter timelines for budget and procurement processes. At county level, PFM systems were partially flexible with some resource reallocation but maintained centralized purchasing arrangements. The flow of funds to counties and health facilities was delayed and the procurement processes were lengthy. Reproductive and child health services: Domestic and donor funds were reallocated towards the pandemic response resulting in postponement of program activities and affected family planning service delivery. Universal Health Coverage (UHC) plans: Prioritization of UHC related activities was negatively impacted due the shift of focus to the pandemic response. Contrarily the strategic investments in the health sector were found to be a beneficial approach in strengthening the health system. Strengthening health systems to improve their resilience to cope with public health emergencies requires substantial investment of financial and non-financial resources. Health financing arrangements are integral in determining the extent of adaptability, flexibility, and responsiveness of health system to COVID-19 and future pandemics.

At the edge of chaos: a prospective multiple case study in Australian general practices adapting to COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

The rapid onset and progressive course of the COVID-19 pandemic challenged primary care practices to generate rapid solutions to unique circumstances, creating a natural experiment of effectiveness, resilience, financial stability and governance across primary care models. We aimed to characterise how practices in Melbourne, Australia modified clinical and organisational routines in response to the pandemic in 2020-2021 and identify factors that influenced these changes.

DESIGN

Prospective, qualitative, participatory case study design using constant comparative data analysis, conducted between April 2020 and February 2021. Participant general practitioner (GP) investigators were involved in study design, recruitment of other participants, data collection and analysis. Data analysis included investigator diaries, structured practice observation, documents and interviews.

SETTING

The cases were six Melbourne practices of varying size and organisational model.

PARTICIPANTS

GP investigators approached potential participants. Practice healthcare workers were interviewed by social scientists on three occasions, and provided feedback on presentations of preliminary findings.

RESULTS

We conducted 58 interviews with 26 practice healthcare workers including practice owners, practice managers, GPs, receptionists and nurses; and six interviews with GP investigators. Data saturation was achieved within each practice and across the sample. The pandemic generated changes to triage, clinical care, infection control and organisational routines, particularly around telehealth. While collaboration and trust increased within several practices, others fragmented, leaving staff isolated and demoralised. Financial and organisational stability, collaborative problem solving, creative leadership and communication (internally and within the broader healthcare sector) were major influences on practice ability to negotiate the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the complex influences on primary care practices, and reinforces the strengths of clinician participation in research design, conduct and analysis. Two implications are: telehealth, triage and infection management innovations are likely to continue; the existing payment system provides inadequate support to primary care in a global pandemic.

Expanding Medical Surge Capacity to Counteract COVID-19: South Korea's Medical Fee Adjustment Through the National Health Insurance System

BACKGROUND

South Korea has utilized its National Health Insurance (NHI) system to adjust the medical fees payable for healthcare services, to financially support the frontline healthcare providers combating COVID-19. This study evaluated the composition of such adjustments to the medical fees-made to secure resource surge capacity against the pandemic-in South Korea.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics and schematization were employed to analyze 3,612,640 COVID-19-related NHI claims from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. COVID-19 suspected and confirmed cases were evaluated based on the proportion of fees adjustment, classified into space, staff, or stuff (3S) using diagnosis codes. The proportion of fees adjustment was investigated in terms of the healthcare expenditure, number of patients, and number of healthcare services covered.

FINDINGS

First, in terms of cost, medical fee adjustments covered over 96% of the total costs arising from the increased demand for testing (stuff) and isolated spaces among patients suspected of having COVID-19. Second, medical fees were adjusted to cover over 80% of the cost attributable to COVID-19 confirmed cases, in relation to isolated spaces and medical staff support. Third, the adjustment of less than 10% of the various types of medical fees, if selected strategically, can effectively induce a surge in resource capacity.

INTERPRETATION

South Korea has improved its existing surge capacity by adjusting the medical fees payable through NHI to healthcare providers. Particularly, through the provider payment system of fee-for-service, the Korean government could prevent the spread of infection and protect the medical staff assigned to respond to COVID-19. However, additional studies on alternative payment systems are needed to control costs while maintaining an effective pandemic response system in the face of the prolonged COVID-19 outbreak.

Pediatric Residency Training amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Exploring the Impact of Supervision and Clinical Practice Guidelines on Clinical and Financial Outcomes

Objective

This study is aimed at calculating the magnitude of the effect of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and supervision in inhibiting the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical and financial outcomes of non-COVID-19 inpatient care by pediatric residents in academic medical center (AMC) hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

The cohort retrospective study was conducted. This study collected patient data from pediatric residency programs. A research cohort consisted of non-COVID-19 pediatric patients at Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital. This study compared the subgroup of patients treated during the pandemic with those treated before the pandemic. The results were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 and Smart-PLS.

Results

There was a 41.4% decrease in pediatric inpatients during the pandemic with an increased severity level and complexity level, a reduction of 7.46% availability of supervisors, an increase of 0.4% in readmission < 30 days, an increase of 0.31% in-hospital mortality, an increase the total costs of care, and a decrease of insurance claim profit. CPG did not moderate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical outcomes (β = -0.006, P = 0.083) but moderated the financial outcomes (β = -0.022, P = 0.000), by reducing the total cost of care and increasing insurance claim profit. Supervision moderated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical outcomes (β = 0.040, P = 0.000) by increasing aLOS and on the financial outcomes (β = -0.031, P = 0.000) by reducing the total cost of care and increasing insurance claim profit. This study model had a 24.0% variance of explanatory power for clinical outcomes and 49.0% for financial outcomes. This study's structural model effectively predicted clinical outcomes (Q 2 = 0.238) and financial outcomes (Q 2 = 0.413).

Conclusion

Direct supervision inhibited the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on both clinical and financial outcomes of non-COVID-19 inpatient care by pediatric residents, while CPG only inhibited the negative impact on financial outcomes. Implication of This Study. In a disaster, the availability of CPG and direct supervision makes AMC hospitals able to inhibit the negative impact of disasters on clinical and financial outcomes.

Associations between new health conditions and healthcare service utilizations among older adults in the United Kingdom: effects of COVID-19 risks, worse financial situation, and lowered income

Background

Health services are critically important for older adults, particularly during the Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, COVID-19 risks, worse financial situation, and lowered income may seriously impact health services by feasibility and accessibility. Therefore, the aim of the present study was empirically to explore how health-seeking behaviors are influenced by new health conditions through COVID-19 risks, worse financial situation, and lowered income.

Methods

Data were from ELSA COVID-19 waves 1 and 2 which included a sample of 6952 and 6710 older adults in the United Kingdom, respectively. The frequency distribution analyses were conducted by Chi-square analysis by gender groups. Zero-inflated Poisson regressions were used to examine how worse financial situation and lowered income were associated with COVID-19 risks and new health conditions. Logistic regressions were employed to examine the associations of COVID-19 risks, worse financial situation, and lowered income with treatment cancellation and accessible care. Cross-sectional mediation models, cross-sectional moderation models, longitudinal mediation models, and longitudinal moderation models were conducted based on Hayes model 6, Hayes model 29, Montoya model 1, and Montoya model 2, respectively.

Results

Most of the sample was >65 years old, females, located in urban place, and involved in long-standing condition. Regression analysis showed that COVID-19 risks, worse financial situation, and lowered income were associated with treatment cancellation and accessible care. In the longitudinal mediations, effect coefficients of ‘X’ → (treatment cancellation in wave 1 (Tcn1)- treatment cancellation in wave 2 (Tcn2))(β = −.0451, p < .0001, low limit confidence interval (LLCI) = −.0618, upper limit confidence interval (ULCI) = −.0284), ‘X’ → (COVID-19 risks in wave 1 (Csk1)- COVID-19 risks in wave 2 (Csk2)) (β = .0592, p < .0001, LLCI = .0361, ULCI = .0824), and ‘X’ → (lowered income in wave 1 (CIn1)- lowered income in wave 2 (CIn2)) (β = −.0351, p = .0001, LLCI = -.0523, ULCI = -.0179) were significant. Additionally, effect coefficients of ‘X’ → (accessible care in wave 1 (Acr1)- accessible care in wave 2 (Acr2)) (β = .3687, p < .0001, LLCI = .3350, ULCI = .4025),'X’ → (Csk1- Csk2) (β = .0676, p = .0005, LLCI = .0294, ULCI = .1058), and ‘X’ → (worse financial situation in wave 1- worse financial situation in wave 2) (β = −.0369, p = .0102, LLCI = -.0650, ULCI = -.0087) were significant.

Conclusions

There were longitudinal mediating effects of COVID-19 risks, worse financial situation, and lowered income on the relationship between new health conditions and treatment cancellation and relationship between new health conditions and accessible care. These findings suggest that worse financial situation, lowered income, and COVID-19 risks exerted an influence on the relationship between new health conditions and treatment cancellation and relationship between new health conditions and accessible care among older adults. Findings suggest that longitudinal mediations may be important components of interventions aiming to meet service needs. Long-term health policy implications indicate the need for reducing COVID-19 risks, improving financial situation, and increasing income among the targeted population.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-02995-8.

Approaches to Health Efficiency across the European Space through the Lens of the Health Budget Effort

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, financial resources allocated to the health system have been refocused according to priority 0: fighting the pandemic. The main objective of this research is to identify the vulnerabilities affecting the health budget effort in the EU and in the Member States during the health crisis period. The analysis takes into account relevant statistical indicators both in terms of financial allocation to health and expenditure on health protection of the population in the Member States, with the effect being tracked even during the pandemic period. The novelty of the study is the identification of viable directions of intervention based on the structural determination of expenditures related to measures to combat the pandemic and making proposals for changes in public policies based on the determination of the effectiveness of budget allocations in health in relation to the proposed purpose. The main outcome of the study is the identification of the vulnerabilities and the projection of measures to mitigate them in the medium and long term.

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19: A comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries

Provider payment mechanisms were adjusted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our objective was to review adjustments for hospitals and healthcare professionals across 20 countries.

We developed an analytical framework distinguishing between payment adjustments compensating income loss and those covering extra costs related to COVID-19. Information was extracted from the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) and classified according to the framework. We found that income loss was not a problem in countries where professionals were paid by salary or capitation and hospitals received global budgets. In countries where payment was based on activity, income loss was compensated through budgets and higher fees. New FFS payments were introduced to incentivize remote services. Payments for COVID-19 related costs included new fees for out- and inpatient services but also new PD and DRG tariffs for hospitals. Budgets covered the costs of adjusting wards, creating new (ICU) beds, and hiring staff.

We conclude that public payers assumed most of the COVID-19-related financial risk. In view of future pandemics policymakers should work to increase resilience of payment systems by: (1) having systems in place to rapidly adjust payment systems; (2) being aware of the economic incentives created by these adjustments such as cost-containment or increasing the number of patients or services, that can result in unintended consequences such as risk selection or overprovision of care; and (3) periodically evaluating the effects of payment adjustments on access and quality of care.