The Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations recognize the importance of making progress in the eradication and treatment of sexually transmitted deceases (STD). STD are among the most widespread diseases in the world and have the highest prevalence in Sub-Saharan Africa. The current study explored the associations between the allocation of the development assistance for health (DAH) in 54 African countries and key development indicators – STD incidence, Gross Domestic Product per capita, health expenditure, and life expectancy at birth. It employed descriptive statistical methods, the matrix scatter plot analysis and the Pearson correlation test for this purpose. The findings indicated that there was a considerable increase in the volume of the DAH given to control and prevent STD in Africa over the period of 2002–2011. A statistically significant positive association was detected between the STD incidence and the health aid allocations. At the same time, the imbalance in the distribution of the health aid between the major and minor aid recipients in the continent increased. The study concludes by discussing policy implications that can be drawn from these findings.

The inclusion of both monetary and non-monetary indirect benefits in economic evaluations of public health programmes and services can have significant distributive effects between patient groups. As a result, some patients may be advantaged and others disadvantaged for reasons not directly related to health outcomes or (direct) treatment costs. In pluralistic democracies, there is a case for consulting the community on the fairness of policies that have such distributive implications. This paper reports the results of two pilot studies aimed at uncovering the preferences of the Australian public for the inclusion of indirect benefits in the evaluation of services for its national health scheme, Medicare. The initial survey found some support for taking account of non-monetary indirect benefits – for example, the social contribution made by parents of young children and carers of elderly relatives. By contrast, there was little support for giving high taxpayers priority access to general Medicare services, to life-saving organ transplants, or to very costly drugs, despite the indirect social benefits of doing so. However, such support increased significantly in the follow-up study when the outcomes were characterised as certain, identifiable and health related, and the opportunity costs of failing to take account of indirect benefits were made very clear. The follow-up survey provided evidence of public scepticism about the willingness or ability of government to use additional tax receipts for socially beneficial purposes, and/or a preference for programmes and services that focus on health rather than welfare more generally.

In recent years, a variety of ‘accelerated access’ schemes have been introduced by pharmaceutical regulators and funders globally. These schemes aim to overcome perceived regulatory and reimbursement barriers to accessing medicines – particularly for patients with limited time or therapeutic options. However, patient access to approved medicines is mediated by a number of third parties including regulators and payers, and physicians who act both as gatekeepers and guides to prescribed medications. It is therefore essential to know how physicians think about accelerated access as they are responsible for advising patients on and prescribing medicines made available via these pathways. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 Australian physicians focusing on their attitudes towards accelerated access. We identified three ‘archetypes’ of physicians: ‘confident accelerators’, ‘cautious accelerators’, and ‘decelerators’. Although all acknowledged the potential risks and benefits of accelerated access, they disagreed on their magnitude and extent and how they should be balanced in both policy formation and clinical practice. Overall, our results illustrate the diversity of clinical opinions in this area and the importance of monitoring both the prescribing and clinical outcomes that result from accelerated access programmes to ensure that these are both clinically and morally acceptable.

This article studies the implementation of the European Union (EU)’s Patients’ Rights Directive in Germany and Norway. The objective of the Directive was to allow EU member states to have a say in the regulatory work, ensure predictability and uniformity in the application of EU rules on cross-border care, and enhance a move towards EU harmonisation in this area. So far, the implementation processes in Norway and Germany have mixed results regarding the likelihood of achieving uniformity and harmonisation. Although the Directive has had convergent effects on certain areas of cross-border care, such as setting up National Contact Points and providing patients with the basic right to treatment abroad, implementation also shows divergent patterns. In both countries, adapting to EU rules has strengthened patients’ rights to choose freely among health-service providers in a wider European health-service market. However, due to legal discretion and country-specific institutions within which the new rules are applied, divergent patterns prevail.

In Belgium and France, physicians can charge a supplementary fee on top of the tariff set by the mandatory basic health insurance scheme. In both countries, the supplementary fee system is under pressure because of financial sustainability concerns and a lack of added value for the patient. Expenditure on supplementary fees is increasing much faster than total health expenditure. So far, measures taken to curb this trend have not been successful. For certain categories of physicians, supplementary fees represent one-third of total income. For patients, however, the added value of supplementary fees is not that clear. Supplementary fees can buy comfort and access to physicians who refuse to treat patients who are not willing to pay supplementary fees. Perceived quality of care plays an important role in patients’ willingness to pay supplementary fees. Today, there is no evidence that physicians who charge supplementary fees provide better quality of care than physicians who do not. However, linking supplementary fees to objectively proven quality of care and limiting access to top quality care to patients able and willing to pay supplementary fees might not be socially acceptable in many countries. Our conclusion is that supplementary physicians’ fees are not sustainable.

A current policy issue is whether, and if so under what circumstances, insurance companies should be given access to genetic test results. The insurance industry argues for mandatory disclosure in order to avoid problems of adverse selection; an alternative would be a moratorium or legislation preventing such disclosure; a third option a voluntary disclosure law. This paper investigates the impact of these policies on individuals' incentives to both acquire genetic information and to disclose it to providers of health and/or life insurance. The theoretical framework used to inform this analysis is provided by the ‘games of persuasion’ literature, in which one agent tries to influence another agent's decision by selectively withholding her private information regarding quality. The application of the theoretical framework to this policy context yields the following results. Individuals have the incentive to acquire genetic information and to disclose the test results if disclosure is voluntary. If, however, they are obliged to disclose the results of any genetic tests they have taken, their incentive may be not to acquire such information. I discuss the policy implications of these findings both from the point of view of the insurance industry and from a public health perspective.

Legislation in most countries regulates trade in poisons and highly addictive products, such as narcotics. The statements that (1) tobacco harms health and (2) causes addiction are established as facts in international and national law. Yet in Russia, and in many other countries, there is a contradiction between the open sale of this addictive poison and basic laws, such as those on product safety. Provisions in both the Russian constitution and the criminal code can be interpreted as making the sale of tobacco illegal, setting out severe penalties for those involved. Yet, remarkably, tobacco is treated quite differently from other products. In this paper, we describe the experience so far in seeking to enforce this legislation in Russia. Attempts to persuade the police to enforce the legislation have been unsuccessful, although they accept that there is a prima facie case for action but, in private, express fear of taking it. The case for action is currently being argued before the Russian Supreme Court but this could take many years to reach a conclusion. In the mean time, new legislation on the regulation of tobacco production has been passed by the State Duma, with the support of the tobacco industry, which implicitly assumes that tobacco is a lawful product, thereby creating legal confusion. We argue that the only way to redress this situation is to recognize that tobacco production and sales must be regulated in the same way as any other harmful and addictive substance.

In a context of cost containment and demands for better quality in public health care, payment systems are used as an instrument to promote efficiency improvements in service providers. Andalusia has adopted an original type of risk-adjusted capitation payment mechanism to reimburse public hospitals. This paper presents the main characteristics of the reimbursement mechanism of the Andalusian Health Service highlighting some differences with the mechanisms adopted in other parts of Europe. The paper also explores the evolution of the efficiency and quality of the hospitals after its implementation using the Malmquist index. Results indicate that hospitals have slightly improved their efficiency, particularly urban hospitals, and these improvements are not significantly related to a negative evolution of quality. However, it is not possible to assert to what extent, improvements are the consequence of the new payment system. The organisation of the Servicio Andaluz de Salud and the limited competition between hospitals reduce the effectiveness of the reform.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the UK's primary health care priority-setting body, has traditionally described its decisions as being informed by ‘social value judgements’ about how resources should be allocated across society. This paper traces the intellectual history of this term and suggests that, in NICE's adoption of the idea of the ‘social value judgement’, we are hearing the echoes of welfare economics at a particular stage of its development, when logical positivism provided the basis for thinking about public policy choice. As such, it is argued that the term offers an overly simplistic conceptualisation of NICE's normative approach and contributes to a situation in which NICE finds itself without the necessary language fully and accurately to articulate its basis for decision-making. It is suggested that the notion of practical public reasoning, based on reflection about coherent principles of action, might provide a better characterisation of the enterprise in which NICE is, or hopes to be, engaged.

In Canada, there is an ongoing debate about whether to expand Medicare to include a national pharmaceutical benefit on a universal basis. The potential health benefits are understood to be significant, but there are ongoing concerns about affordability. In Israel, the National Health Insurance benefits package includes a comprehensive pharmaceutical benefit. Nonetheless, per capita pharmaceutical spending is well below that of Canada and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development average. This paper highlights seven strategies that Israel has employed to constrain pharmaceutical spending: (1) prioritizing new technologies, subject to a global budget constraint; (2) using regulations and market power to secure fair and reasonable prices; (3) establishing an efficient pharmaceutical distribution system; (4) promoting effective prescribing behavior; (5) avoiding artificial inflation of consumer demand; (6) striking an appropriate balance between respect for IP rights, access and cost containment; and (7) developing a shared societal understanding about the value and limits of pharmaceutical spending. Some of these strategies are already in place in some parts of Canada. Others could be introduced into Canada, and might contribute to the affordability of a national pharmaceutical benefit, but substantial adaptation would be needed. For example, in Israel the health maintenance organizations (HMOs) play a central role in promoting effective prescribing behavior, whereas in HMO-free Canada other mechanisms are needed to advance this important goal.

This comparison of institutions of science advice during COVID-19 between the Westminster systems of England/UK and Ontario/Canada focuses on the role of science in informing public policy in two central components of the response to the pandemic: the adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and the procuring of vaccines. It compares and contrasts established and purpose-built bodies with varying degrees of independence from the political executive, and shows how each attempted to manage the tensions between scientific and governmental logics of accountability as they negotiated the boundary between science and policy. It uses the comparison to suggest potential lessons about the relative merits and drawbacks of different institutional arrangements for science advice to governments in an emergency.

The privatisation of provision and the emerging privatisation of funding, manifested in the rapid rise of private health insurance, are the most obvious signs that the universal, Swedish health system is gradually weakened. Meanwhile, the private welfare industry creates a neoliberal Newspeak where the burdening effects of the private insurance system on public healthcare are said to be unburdening, and where every step away from the principles of a universal welfare model is said to be in line with the principles of a universal welfare model. The language spoken by the private welfare industry spills over into authorities, journalists and scholars. In this article, I discuss, problematise and partially reject two research questions – Does VHI unburden the public health care system? and Are VHI holders less supportive of funding public health care? – where the authors fail to place development in the context of increased inequality and declining tax ratio, and where they use the welfare industry's definitions invented to blur the consequences of a parallel health system.

Amidst the NHS’s (National Health Service) success lies its major weakness, although one that Klein overlooks in his reflections on the NHS as it approaches 70. The focus on, and investment in, curing ill-health has been at the expense of attending to the public’s overall health and well-being. This preoccupation poses a greater threat to the NHS’s future than privatisation. Despite the weakness having been diagnosed decades ago, redressing the imbalance has proved stubbornly hard to achieve. Rhetoric has not been translated into reality. Yet, we may be on the cusp of a tipping point where in order to ensure a sustainable NHS, and one that is capable of meeting the 21st century challenges facing it, there is a renewed and overdue interest in promoting health and well-being in communities. But for this to succeed, the NHS will need to embrace its bete noire, local government.

Part of the controversy surrounding competition and health care stems from the complexity connected with delineating the applicability of competition law – encompassing both the provisions governing anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominance and the state-aid rules. Cases determined at the European Union (EU) level within the past 30 years have developed a broad framework, and notable trends have emerged – for example, a distinction between health care providers and managing bodies (purchasers). The former have been subject to an ‘abstract’ test and the latter to a more sophisticated ‘concrete’ test. In this paper, we chart the development of the EU courts’ approach to developing the ‘undertaking’ concept in health care and examine the current EU competition law framework with a view to identifying future directions. van de Gronden has recently identified a ‘three-prong’ test of exemption from competition law in connection with the recent CEPPB case: firstly, where the supply of services is predominantly dependent upon public financing; secondly, the public funding aims to achieve a public interest goal and thirdly, the activities concerned are closely related to this public interest goal. We examine this test in a health care context, drawing on our findings regarding Dutch competition reforms.

The election of Donald Trump, coupled with the retention of Republican majorities in the US House of Representatives and Senate, raises questions about future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the structure and funding of the country’s public health insurance programs – Medicare, Medicaid and the Child Health Insurance Program – and the direction of health policy in the United States, more generally. Political scientists are not renowned for their capacity to predict the future and many of those who forecast election results have received criticism in recent weeks for failing to predict the Trump victory. While the future is uncertain, it is possible for social scientists to offer a ‘conditional causal analysis’ about the future. This essay is an effort to think about the likely shape of American health care between now and the next US presidential election.