UNASSIGNED: Analyze the implementation of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) in Chile with a view to optimizing the distribution of public resources.
UNASSIGNED: A chronological narrative analysis of the main milestones was complemented by simulated application of DRGs through emulated competition and cluster analysis for evaluative purposes.
UNASSIGNED: In 2001, DRGs were introduced in Chile in an academic context. The National Health Fund (FONASA) began using DRGs in the private sector. A public sector pilot was launched in 2015. After nearly two decades of progress, in 2020 FONASA established the DRG program as a payment mechanism for public hospitals. However, the COVID-19 pandemic slowed its development. In 2022, implementation was resumed. After evaluating the program, it was evident that the hospital clusters that had been predefined for differentiated payment did not successfully differentiate homogeneous groups. In 2023, the program was reformed, financing was increased, a single cluster and base rate were defined, and greater hospital complexity was recognized, compared to previous years. Three hospitals were added to the program, for a total of 68.
UNASSIGNED: This experience shows that it is possible to sustain a public health financing policy that achieves greater efficiency and equity in the health system, based on the existence of robust institutions that continuously develop and improve.
UNASSIGNED: Analisar a implementação de grupos de diagnósticos relacionados (DRG, na sigla em inglês) no Chile, com o objetivo de otimizar a distribuição de recursos públicos.
UNASSIGNED: Foi utilizada uma análise narrativa cronológica dos principais marcos, complementada por simulações da implementação de DRG usando concorrência simulada (yardstick competition) e análise de agrupamento para fins de avaliação.
UNASSIGNED: O modelo de DRG foi introduzido no Chile em 2001, em um contexto acadêmico. Em 2015, o Fundo Nacional de Saúde (FONASA) começou a utilizá-lo no setor privado e, com um projeto-piloto, no setor público. Após quase duas décadas de progresso, em 2020, o programa de DRG foi implementado como mecanismo de pagamento do FONASA para os hospitais públicos. No entanto, a pandemia de COVID-19 interrompeu seu desenvolvimento. Em 2022, a aplicação foi retomada e, após uma avaliação do programa, ficou claro que os grupos hospitalares predefinidos para o pagamento diferenciado por DRG não formavam grupos homogêneos. Em 2023, o programa foi reformulado, com aumento dos recursos financeiros e a definição de um único agrupamento e de uma taxa básica, reconhecendo-se uma maior complexidade hospitalar do que nos anos anteriores. Além disso, três hospitais foram adicionados ao programa, elevando o total para 68.
UNASSIGNED: A experiência mostra que é possível dar continuidade a uma política pública de financiamento da saúde para alcançar maior eficiência e equidade no sistema de saúde com base na existência de instituições sólidas que persistam em seu desenvolvimento e contínuo aprimoramento.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Governance, health financing, and service delivery are critical elements of health systems for provision of robust and sustainable chronic disease care. We leveraged the third iteration of the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA) to evaluate oversight and financing for kidney care worldwide.
METHODS: A survey was administered to stakeholders from countries affiliated with the ISN from July to September 2022. We evaluated funding models utilized for reimbursement of medications, services for the management of chronic kidney disease, and provision of kidney replacement therapy (KRT). We also assessed oversight structures for the delivery of kidney care.
RESULTS: Overall, 167 of the 192 countries and territories contacted responded to the survey, representing 97.4% of the global population. High-income countries tended to use public funding to reimburse all categories of kidney care in comparison with low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle income countries (LMICs). In countries where public funding for KRT was available, 78% provided universal health coverage. The proportion of countries that used public funding to fully reimburse care varied for non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (27%), dialysis for acute kidney injury (either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis) (44%), chronic hemodialysis (45%), chronic peritoneal dialysis (42%), and kidney transplant medications (36%). Oversight for kidney care was provided at a national level in 63% of countries, and at a state/provincial level in 28% of countries.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated significant gaps in universal care coverage, and in oversight and financing structures for kidney care, particularly in in LICs and LMICs.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the one-year sum of direct costs related to open lower limb fracture treatment in an academic setting in the Netherlands. The secondary objective was to estimate the impact of deep infection and nonunion on one-year total direct costs.
METHODS: A multi-center, retrospective cost analysis of open lower limb fractures treated in an academic setting in the Netherlands, between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018, was conducted. The costing methodology was based on patient level aggregation using a bottom-up approach. A multiple linear regression model was used to predict the total costs based on Fracture-related-infections, multitrauma, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, Gustilo-Anderson grade and nonunion.
RESULTS: Overall, 70 fractures were included for analysis, the majority Gustilo-Anderson grade III fractures (57%). Median (IQR) one-year hospital costs were €31,258 (20,812-58,217). Costs were primarily attributed to the length of hospital stay (58%) and surgical procedures (30%). The median length of stay was 16 days, with an increase to 50 days in Fracture-related infections. Subsequent costs (46,075 [25,891-74,938] vs. 15,244 [8970-30,173]; p = 0.002), and total hospital costs (90,862 [52,868-125,004] vs. 29,297 [21,784-40,677]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher for infected cases. It was found that Fracture-related infection, multitrauma, and Gustilo-Anderson grade IIIA-C fractures were significant predictors of increased costs.
CONCLUSIONS: In treatment of open lower limb fractures, deep infection, higher Gustilo-Anderson classification, and multitrauma significantly increase direct hospital costs. Considering the impact of infection on morbidity and total healthcare costs, future research should focus on preventing Fracture-related infections.

BACKGROUND: The attainment of global health security goals and universal health coverage will remain a mirage unless African health systems are adequately funded to improve resilience to public health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the global inequity in accessing medical countermeasures, leaving African countries far behind. As we anticipate the next pandemic, improving investments in health systems to adequately finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR) promptly, ensuring equity and access to medical countermeasures, is crucial. In this article, we analyze the African and global pandemic financing initiatives and put ways forward for policymakers and the global health community to consider.
METHODS: This article is based on a rapid literature review and desk review of various PPPR financing mechanisms in Africa and globally. Consultation of leaders and experts in the area and scrutinization of various related meeting reports and decisions have been carried out.
METHODS: The African Union (AU) has demonstrated various innovative financing mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of public health emergencies in the continent. To improve equal access to the COVID-19 medical countermeasures, the AU launched Africa Medical Supplies Platform (AMSP) and Africa Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT). These financing initiatives were instrumental in mitigating the impacts of COVID-19 and their lessons can be capitalized as we make efforts for PPPR. The COVID-19 Response Fund, subsequently converted into the African Epidemics Fund (AEF), is another innovative financing mechanism to ensure sustainable and self-reliant PPPR efforts. The global initiatives for financing PPPR include the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) and the Pandemic Fund. The PEF was criticized for its inadequacy in building resilient health systems, primarily because the fund ignored the prevention and preparedness items. The Pandemic Fund is also being criticized for its suboptimal emphasis on the response aspect of the pandemic and non-inclusive governance structure.
CONCLUSIONS: To ensure optimal financing for PPPR, we call upon the global health community and decision-makers to focus on the harmonization of financing efforts for PPPR, make regional financing mechanisms central to global PPPR financing efforts, and ensure the inclusivity of international finance governance systems.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care is a key element in the structuring and coordination of health systems, contributing to overall coverage and performance. PHC financing is therefore central in this context, with variations in sufficiency and regularity depending on the \"political dimension\" of health systems. Research that systematically examines the political factors and arrangements influencing PHC financing is justified from a global and multidisciplinary perspective. The scoping review proposed here aims to systematically map the evidence on this topic in the current literature, identifying groups, institutions, priorities and gaps in the research.
METHODS: A scoping review will be conducted following the method proposed by Arksey and O\'Malley to answer the following question: What is known from the literature about political factors and arrangements and their influence on and repercussions for primary health care financing and resource allocation models? The review will include peer-reviewed papers in Portuguese, English or Spanish published between 1978 and 2023. Searches will be performed of the following databases: Medline (PubMed), Embase, BVS Salud, Web of Science, Scopus and Science Direct. The review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used for literature screening and mapping. Screening and data charting will be conducted by a team of four reviewers.
BACKGROUND: This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform, available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Q9W3P.

UNASSIGNED: This study investigates the Health-Led Growth Hypothesis (HLGH) within OECD countries, examining how health expenditures influence economic growth and the role of different health financing systems in this relationship.
UNASSIGNED: Utilizing a comprehensive analysis spanning 2000 to 2019 across 38 OECD countries, advanced econometric methodologies were employed. Both second-generation panel data estimators (Dynamic CCEMG, CS-ARDL, AMG) and first-generation models (Panel ARDL with PMG, FMOLS, DOLS) were utilized to test the hypothesis.
UNASSIGNED: The findings confirm the positive impact of health expenditures on economic growth, supporting the HLGH. Significant disparities were observed in the ability of health expenditures to stimulate economic growth across different health financing systems, including the Bismarck, Beveridge, Private Health Insurance, and System in Transition models.
UNASSIGNED: This study enriches the ongoing academic dialog by providing an exhaustive analysis of the relationship between health expenditures and economic growth. It offers valuable insights for policymakers on how to optimize health investments to enhance economic development, considering the varying effects of different health financing frameworks.

BACKGROUND: International oral health policy directions led by the World Health Organisation call for the inclusion of oral health within universal health coverage. The aim of this study is to perform a budget impact analysis of a policy option for a more cost-efficient oral health workforce skill-mix (dentists and oral health therapists) to provide public oral healthcare in Victoria, Australia.
METHODS: Two hypothetical standard care pathways were developed. A dynamic population Markov model in TreeAge software, with a time horizon of 6 years. Two scenarios were modelled to determine: (1) base-case scenario: the threshold the dentist workforce could reduce per year, while achieving the same service delivery outputs, and (2) alternative scenario: the potential cost-savings for utilising an optimally cost-efficient oral health workforce skill-mix.
RESULTS: The threshold analysis showed a minimum reduction of 13% of the dentist workforce being replaced with oral health therapists can occur without having any impact on the same service delivery outputs. Under the alternative scenario, the potential cost-savings would be AUD$1,425,037 (standard deviation 58,954).
CONCLUSIONS: Governments and policy-decision makers should consider strategies in training, attracting, and retaining oral health therapists to achieve an optimally cost-efficient oral health workforce skill-mix when delivering public oral healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Understanding and comparing health systems is key for cross-country learning and health system strengthening. Templates help to develop standardised and coherent descriptions and assessments of health systems, which then allow meaningful analyses and comparisons. Our scoping review aims to provide an overview of existing templates, their content and the way data is presented.
METHODS: Based on the WHO building blocks framework, we defined templates as having (1) an overall framework, (2) a list of indicators or topics, and (3) instructions for authors, while covering (4) the design of the health system, (5) an assessment of health system performance, and (6) should cover the entire health system. We conducted a scoping review of grey literature published between 2000 and 2023 to identify templates. The content of the identified templates was screened, analyzed and compared. We found 12 documents that met our inclusion criteria. The building block `health financing´ is covered in all 12 templates; and many templates cover ´service delivery´ and ´health workforce\'. Health system performance is frequently assessed with regard to \'access and coverage\', \'quality and safety\', and \'financial protection\'. Most templates do not cover \'responsiveness\' and \'efficiency\'. Seven templates combine quantitative and qualitative data, three are mostly quantitative, and two are primarily qualitative. Templates cover data and information that is mostly relevant for specific groups of countries, e.g. a particular geographical region, or for high or for low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Templates for LMICs rely more on survey-based indicators than administrative data.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first scoping review of templates for standardized descriptions of health systems and assessments of their performance. The implications are that (1) templates can help analyze health systems across countries while accounting for context; (2) template-guided analyses of health systems could underpin national health policies, strategies, and plans; (3) organizations developing templates could learn from approaches of other templates; and (4) more research is needed on how to improve templates to better achieve their goals. Our findings provide an overview and help identify the most important aspects and topics to look at when comparing and analyzing health systems, and how data are commonly presented. The templates were created by organizations with different agendas and target audiences, and with different end products in mind. Comprehensive health systems analyses and comparisons require production of quantitative indicators and complementing them with qualitative information to build a holistic picture.
BACKGROUND:   Not applicable.

OBJECTIVE: The article aims to compare payment schemes for cataract, glaucoma, vitrectomy, cornea transplantations, DME, and AMD across Hungary, Poland, and Ukraine, and to identify implementable practices in Ukraine within the context of ongoing healthcare reforms.
METHODS: Researchers used mixed-method research-with legal documents and data analysis on utilisation of ophthalmology services between 2010 and 2019 and in-depth semi structured interviews with fifteen health experts from Hungary, Poland, and Ukraine. Interviewees, five from each country, were representatives from healthcare providers and payers with at least 10 years\' experience in ophthalmology care and knowledge about financing schemes in each country of residence.
RESULTS: We identified significant differences in healthcare delivery and financing of ophthalmology services between Hungary and Poland, despite both countries rely on Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) based systems for hospital care. Good practices for financing specific eye treatments like cataract, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), cornea transplantations, and vitrectomy are identified. The financing scheme, including financial products and incentives, can influence the volume of treatments. Access to ophthalmic care is a key concern, with differences in treatment schemes between Hungary (ambulatory care) and Poland (hospital care), leading to higher costs and the need for centralization of complex procedures like cornea transplantations.
CONCLUSIONS: The article highlights the importance of incentivizing quality improvements and removing financial barriers in Poland, while Hungary should focus on continuous monitoring of treatment methods and flexibility in reimbursement. For Ukraine, the research findings are significant due to ongoing healthcare reform, and the country seeks optimal practices while considering the experiences of other countries.