Centralizing and decentralizing governance in the COVID-19 pandemic: The politics of credit and blame

COVID-19 led to significant and dynamic shifts in power relations within and between governments, teaching us how governments make health policies and how health crises affect government. We focus on centralization and decentralization within and between governments: within government, meaning the extent to which the head of government controls policy; and between governments, meaning the extent to which the central government pre-empts or controls local and regional government. Political science literature suggests that shifting patterns of centralization and decentralization can be explained by leading politicians' efforts to gain credit for popular actions and outcomes and deflect blame for unpopular ones. We test this hypothesis in two ways: by coding the Health Systems Response Monitor's data on government responses, and through case studies of the governance of COVID-19 in Austria, Czechia and France. We find that credit and blame do substantially explain the timing and direction of changes in centralization and decentralization. In the first wave, spring 2020, heads of government centralized and raised their profile in order to gain credit for decisive action, but they subsequently tried to decentralize in order to avoid blame for repeated restrictions on life or surges of infection. These findings should shape advice on governance for pandemic response

Health Technology Assessment and Health Care Reimbursement in the European Union: Permissive Dissensus and the Limits of Harmonization through the Backdoor

Member states have consistently limited the European Union's competences in the area of health care reimbursement. Despite these efforts, there has been a slow but steady tendency toward harmonization of a key tool in reimbursement decision-making: health technology assessment (HTA), a multidisciplinary evaluation of "value for money" of medicines, devices, diagnostics, and interventions, which provides expert advice for reimbursement decisions. This article examines the origins of this paradoxical appetite for harmonization as well as of the dissensus that has, at the moment, somewhat stalled further integration in HTA. It finds that the prointegration neofunctionalist "permissive dissensus" is still present in decision making on HTA but potentially offset by dissensus or outright opposition from key actors, including member states and the medical device industry. These actors are able to decipher the potential consequences of highly technical issues, such as HTA, for national systems of social protection. Despite that, they have little interest in politicizing the issue, potentially opening the door to integrative policy solutions in the future.

Poland

Background

Research into the politics of health reforms usually looks at parties in a unidimensional way, in the classical left-right axis, where right parties are expected to marketize healthcare while left parties are expected to do the opposite. Populist Radical Right (PRR) parties do not neatly fit this unidimensional approach. The case of the Law and Justice party (PiS) in Poland is illustrative of the tenuous link between traditional neoliberal right-wing health policies and the PPR agenda.

Methods

We conducted a review of available primary sources (legal and policy documents) and secondary literature (academic, press, and think-tank publications). Resulting data was analysed thematically.

Results

Since its rise to power in 2015, PiS has departed from the previous center-right government's market-oriented healthcare policies. It retracted regulations aimed at commercialisation of public healthcare providers, introduced networks of hospitals to reduce internal market of providers and proposed the establishment of National Health Service (later abandoned). It continued the previous government's expansion of health coverage to universal by principle. In the 2019 election manifesto entitled “Polish Model of Welfare State” PiS explicitly states they “reject principles of neoliberalism”. Its most overtly right-wing stances were limited to strictly “cultural wars” context: reproductive health, sexual education, IVF reimbursement etc. Yet even in this instance the harshest proposals (such as stricter abortion laws) were not implemented.

Conclusions

PiS' health policies show that some PRR parties do not conform to a unidimensional left-right divide but rather combine left-wing redistributive policies with right-wing socially conservative stances. In many respects, the current government has enacted health policies that can be described as neo-Weberian and traditionally social-democratic.

Hungary

Background

The impact of Populist Radical Right (PRR) parties on health policy has so far been neglected by health policy and welfare state literature. The case of the Alliance of Young Democrats (Fidesz) in Hungary, a large PPR party which secured three consecutive supermajorities since 2010, is illustrative of the priorities PPR parties.

Methods

We conducted a review of available primary sources (legal and policy documents) and secondary literature (academic, press, and think-tank publications). Resulting data was analyzed thematically.

Results

Under Viktor Orban, Fidesz nominally stopped marketization reforms of the previous governments by re-nationalizing hospitals in its first term. However, voluntary and employer-sponsored private insurance has grown rapidly, resulting in a parallel system of health care financing and provision, likely due to continued underfunding and understaffing of the public sector. The government has not stopped the exodus of health professionals. In public health, Fidesz sought to reduce smoking rates by imposing a wide-reaching smoking ban and by nationalizing the sale of tobacco in its first mandate.

Conclusions

Fidesz' election in 2010 was brought in part due to protests against health privatization. Health care continued to be a prominent theme of the 2018 elections, this time mobilized by the far-right opposition as a grievance against the government. Fidesz's electoral success is less attributable to health policy than to nationalist and populist rhetoric.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Background: In their landmark report on the "Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease" (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of "screening governance organizations" to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Background: In their landmark report on the “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease” (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of “screening governance organizations” to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by the three lead authors. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

The Emerging Social Science Literature on Health Technology Assessment: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Social scientists have paid increasing attention to health technology assessment (HTA). This paper provides an overview of existing social scientific literature on HTA, with a focus on sociology and political science and their subfields.

METHODS

Narrative review of key pieces in English.

RESULTS

Three broad themes recur in the emerging social science literature on HTA: the drivers of the establishment and concrete institutional designs of HTA bodies; the effects of institutionalized HTA on pricing and reimbursement systems and the broader society; and the social and political influences on HTA decisions.

CONCLUSION

Social scientists bring a focus on institutions and social actors involved in HTA, using primarily small-N research designs and qualitative methods. They provide valuable critical perspectives on HTA, at times challenging its otherwise unquestioned assumptions. However, they often leave aside questions important to the HTA practitioner community, including the role of culture and values. Closer collaboration could be beneficial to tackle new relevant questions pertaining to HTA.

Patterns of alternative access: Unpacking the Slovak extraordinary drug reimbursement regime 2012-2016

Many countries employ "alternative access schemes" (e.g. compassionate use, early access programs, off-label use) that seek to provide patients with access to drugs not included on a positive drug list. These schemes offer flexibility to policy-makers but often lack transparency and clear rules. This ambiguity allows for dynamic responses to weaknesses in the main drug approval and reimbursement systems, but also opportunistic use by the health professionals, industry or patients. Yet, most descriptions of these schemes focus on the de jure rather than the de facto situation, presenting a potentially misleading picture. We describe one such scheme in practice: the Slovak "extraordinary reimbursement regime" (ERR), using semi-structured interviews with 18 experts and a new dataset of ERR drugs. The ERR expanded rapidly, doubling between 2012 and 2016. It combined features of four reimbursement schemes: (1) a backdoor market access for expensive drugs; (2) a compassionate use scheme for investigational drugs combined with a "legacy drugs" scheme for older unlicensed drugs; (3) a disease-specific scheme for cancer and orphan drugs; and (4) a scheme for off-label and "off-indication" drugs. These four features reflect broader challenges facing the Slovak reimbursement system. We conclude that detailed study of the type, size and evolution over time of alternative access schemes can serve as indicators of health policy objectives neglected by standard reimbursement systems.

Epistemic communities and experts in health policy-making

The role of evidence and expertise in policy-making has been of interest to public health professionals and political scientists alike. The public health community often sees its efforts as part of a linear knowledge transfer process and tends to blame itself for inadequate communication or translation of its arguments to policy-makers’ language when its efforts fail. Political science, especially theories of the policy process, offer alternative perspectives to explain the success or failure of experts’ preferred policy goals. This paper focuses on the concept of epistemic communities (groups of experts with a common policy goal derived from their shared knowledge) in policy-making, drawing on examples from the field of health technology assessment in Europe. By combining the parsimony and the central focus on experts of the linear knowledge transfer model with the recognition of complexity of political science, the epistemic communities concept provides a useful structure for the public health community to analyze its efforts to influence policy.

The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe: Findings and Implications

BACKGROUND

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available.

METHOD

We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017.

RESULTS

Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.

What has health technology assessment ever done for us?

Health technology assessment (HTA) has over the past three decades become a well-established part of decisions about allocation of resources in many countries. Despite this, little is known about HTA’s impact on health systems. Few studies have evaluated the benefits of HTA for health outcomes, for access to care or for public budgets. In contrast, HTA has relatively clear upfront costs, which could potentially discourage policy-makers from establishing HTA agencies, especially in low income countries with restricted resources. It may be premature, though, to dismiss this approach altogether, as less tangible modernizing goals are still significant.

Health technology assessment in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria

This paper describes and discusses the development and use of health technology assessment (HTA) in five Central and Eastern European countries (CEE): Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. It provides a general snapshot of HTA policies in the selected CEE countries to date by focusing on country case-studies based on document analysis and expert opinion. It offers an overview of similarities and differences between the individual CEE countries and discusses in detail the role of HTA by assessing its formalization and institutionalization, standardization of methodology, the use of HTA in practice and the degree of professionalization of HTA in the region. It finds that HTA has been to some extent implemented in all five countries studied, with methodologies in accordance with international standards, but that challenges remain when it comes to the role of HTA in health care decision-making as well as to human resource capacities of the countries. This paper suggests that coming years will show whether CEE countries develop adequate national analytical capacity to assess and appraise technologies in the context of local need and affordability, instead of using HTA as a mere administrative procedure to fulfill (inter)national requirements. Finally, suggestions are provided to strengthen HTA in CEE countries through cooperation, mutual learning, a common accreditation of HTA bodies and increased network building among CEE HTA experts.