This editorial introduces the special issue dedicated to commemorating the life and scholarly achievements of Professor Joan Rovira Forns, a distinguished health economist whose pioneering work continues to influence global health policy and research. We discuss why Professor Rovira was a prominent figure in the field and summarise some of his key contributions. Next, we highlight the collection of papers featured in this issue, explaining how they connect to his work and contribute to his lasting legacy by celebrating his interdisciplinary approach and dedication to societal impact.

Ozempic and related semaglutide drugs represent a popular new strategy to address obesity in the United States, yet uptake of these medications has sparked opposition highlighting concerns about off-label drug use policies, drug safety, supply shortages and cost. Public attitudes towards off-label prescribing by physicians broadly, and towards Ozempic in particular, in light of this opposition are unclear. To better understand public sentiment on this topic, we analysed data from a representative survey of 3,420 US adults conducted from 13 to 22 June 2023. Public attitudes towards off-label prescribing were split, with 46.3 percent supporting physician discretion to prescribe off-label. Importantly though, 58 percent of respondents were at least somewhat concerned about Ozempic supply shortages caused by off-label use and 63 percent were concerned about Ozempic safety in the context of off-label use. Further analysis from an embedded survey experiment shows that rhetoric highlighting safety (but not supply) concerns surrounding off-label Ozempic prescribing is associated with a significant drop in support for off-label use. These results suggest that the introduction of obesity drugs like Ozempic present a pharmaceutical industry-led path for combatting obesity, but rhetoric opposing these drugs could blunt public support and uptake.

Therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs, Spanish acronym) are a crucial tool for informing funding and pricing decisions for drugs in the Spanish healthcare system. In 2020, for the first time the inclusion of economic evaluations (EEs) was explicitly set as a primary objective in a new Action Plan aimed at consolidating IPTs. This paper seeks to examine the uptake of EE into IPTs and to compare the methods and techniques employed in the EEs conducted during the two-year pilot phase following the reform, i.e., from June 2021 to July 2023. During this period, a total of 181 IPTs were published, with 19 (10.5%) incorporating an EE section. However, out of these 19 identified IPTs, six did not actually conduct a de novo EE, and four only performed a drug cost minimisation analysis. Six IPTs conducted EE analyses following international methodological standards. Based on this review, we observe that the percentage of IPTs incorporating EEs had remained low and exhibited significant heterogeneity. The experience of these two years must be translated into lessons that can serve to reinforce the evaluation of the efficiency of medicines in Spain in the coming years.

We summarise key messages from the World Bank Report Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. A central lesson of the Report is that in decision-making on the path to Universal Health Coverage (UHC), procedural fairness matters alongside substantive fairness. Decision systems should be assessed using a complete conception of procedural fairness that embodies core commitments to impartial and equal consideration of interests and perspectives. These commitments demand that comprehensive information is gathered and disclosed and that justifications for policies are publicly debated; that participation in decision-making is enabled; and that these characteristics of the decision system are institutionalised rather than up to the good will of decision-makers. Procedural fairness can improve equity in outcomes, raise legitimacy and trust, and can help make reforms last. While improving procedural fairness can be costly and there are barriers to achieving it, the range of instruments that countries at varying levels of income and institutional capacity have used with some success shows that, in many contexts, advances in procedural fairness in health financing are possible and worthwhile.

Although the criteria that support reimbursement decisions for medicines are often set by legislation, as is the case in Spain, in many cases neither the definition nor the measurement methods for these criteria are provided. Our goal was to elicit the views of a large sample of Spanish technical specialists on how to evaluate each one of the criteria that inform pricing and reimbursement decisions in Spain. Professionals from various stakeholder groups involved in health economics, health technology assessment, and industry participated in a survey. Participants recommended that reimbursement decisions should take specific account of unmet medical need and rare diseases. Health benefit should be measured using quality-adjusted life-years. There should be an explicit cost-effectiveness threshold, and this threshold should take account of population groups and special situations.

Legal status is an important social determinant of health. Immigration enforcement policies may be an important contributor to health disparities in the form of interior border checkpoints (IBCs). These checkpoints may prevent immigrants and their families from seeking needed medical care. Currently, we do not know how these barriers are perceived by the public. We administered a survey of 6,178 respondents from 13 November to 19 November of 2023 that contained a survey experiment to assess public attitudes on the issue. Respondents were generally not supportive of detaining individuals at IBCs or medical facilities for emergencies regardless of characteristics of the care-seeking individual. A majority was supportive of detention when medical treatment was complete. Respondents were generally more sympathetic towards children and pregnant women. Partisanship and sympathy expressed towards immigrants influenced attitudes towards detention. Findings based on race and ethnicity showed inconsistencies. A majority of Americans did not believe that IBCs should impede undocumented immigrants from accessing medical care, especially in emergency situations and for children and pregnant women. Our findings indicate that there is broad public support for expanding existing policies to allow for undocumented individuals to pass through IBCs to access medical care.

Systems of managed competition naturally seek the middle ground between competition and regulation. This debate essay makes the case for adjusting the level of regulation according to the characteristics of the submarket in question. We first develop a theoretical framework that can be used to identify the services in which relatively free competition will be beneficial. The framework is grounded in the economic literature and consists of eight criteria. Targeted regulatory tools are then discussed that can be used to structure submarkets in which these criteria are not (fully) met. Applying this framework and targeted interventions, regulators gain the flexibility to react to potential market failures, without foregoing the benefits of managed competition where it works well. This analysis is highly relevant for countries in transition to managed competition. Regulators can identify potential failure in submarkets for medical services, and apply the necessary regulatory tools to prepare for a smooth transition.

Although the fair financing report, ‘Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage’, has many sage things to say about democratic deliberative processes, its title belies its content: the report does not offer any assessment of processes for financing universal health coverage. What it does instead is scrutinise processes for deciding how to finance universal health coverage without any linkage to substantive questions concerning financing, and, moreover, the discussion is not narrowly focused on fairness.

Health systems’ insurance/funding can be organised in several ways. Some countries have adopted systems with a mixture of public–private involvement (e.g. Australia, Chile, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand) which creates two-tier health systems, allowing consumers (groups) to have preferential access to the basic standard of care (e.g. skipping waiting times). The degree to which efficiency and equity are achieved in these types of systems is questioned. In this paper, we consider integration of the two tiers by means of a managed competition model, which underpins Social Health Insurance (SHI) systems. We elaborate a two-part conceptual framework, where, first, we review and update the existing pre-requisites for the model of managed competition to fit a broader definition of health systems, and second, we typologise possible roadmaps to achieve that model in terms of the insurance function, and focus on the consequences on providers and governance/stewardship.

This article is a critique of a report, Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. The report proposes a framework that is meant to improve procedural fairness and how decisions in financing of health care can be fairer. The author of this article argues that while procedural fairness and the proposed framework are an important step in improving equity in health sector financing, the report falls short on several aspects of achieving the set objectives. First, the report does not place emphasis on the role of civic education as an important component of public education building on access to information. Therefore, there should be caution in assuming that improved dissemination of information will lead to increased civic action. Secondly, the author proposes that the report include principles that should guide how decisions are made in public deliberations when consensus cannot be achieved. Lastly, the framework in the report does not speak to the complexity of the trade-offs that have to be made between health and other sectors. The author argues that a key area of deliberations in health financing is understanding how practitioners in the sector can argue for better funding against other competing sector such as education and agriculture while still finding complementarities.

Conducting scientific medical research with human subjects presents risks that raise both ethical and human rights concerns. We argue in this article that applying a human rights framework to the problems that arise in the context of scientific medical research can contribute to a better understanding of the impact on individuals, the related obligations of the State, and the avenues to make the State accountable when things go wrong. We start our analysis with a case brought to the European Court of Human Rights, which we use as an illustration throughout the article. We then discuss the relevance of human rights to the field of scientific medical research with a focus on the right to life and the right to health. The article draws on international human rights jurisprudence that deals with concrete disputes arising from the clinical reality. We use case law to highlight the role of human rights law in tackling the real-life problems that may occur during scientific medical research. Our analysis contends that human rights law can provide valuable guidance for healthcare professionals and equip them to handle concrete situations in the clinical reality when the safety of research subjects is at stake.

While a substantial amount of evidence exists on factors associated with positive health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes, the evidence on the same regarding rejections is scarce. Using a proprietary dataset of HTA outcomes in seven Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, we empirically examine the factors associated with HTA rejections and study the magnitude of inter-agency differences in technology appraisals. Data were extracted from HTA reports between 2009 and 2020. The primary outcome was the probability of rejection, which was examined with respect to several regulatory, disease-related, evidence (clinical and economic) and unaddressed uncertainty variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used. Out of N = 1,405 HTA assessments, the rejection rate was 12.9% (n = 181). Significant predictors of HTA rejection were submissions for drugs with cancer or orphan indications (but not both), low quality of evidence and the presence of uncertainties surrounding clinical benefit, cost-effectiveness, and economic model utility inputs. Systematic differences between agencies in their propensity for rejecting the same drugs were revealed, particularly in relation to cancer and rare diseases. Despite the low rejection rate, our findings suggest that it is critical to improve quality of evidence, focus on risk mitigation strategies as a means of reducing the impact of uncertainties and share HTA practices across borders to increase consistency in decision-making.

A substantial share of the global population continues to face barriers to accessing essential medicines. While the pharmaceutical industry’s business model has successfully facilitated the development of innovative medications, efforts to promote universal access to medicines (UAM) remain ineffective. This paper critically assesses the existing barriers to global access to medicines, including the role of unsuitable governance, the protection of intellectual property rights, and other market barriers such as shortages, quality shortcomings, and high prices. Furthermore, we explore a number of promising potential strategies that can help towards achieving the UAM. Specifically, we evaluate the evidence from various initiatives, including alternative models of innovation, manufacturing, procurement, intellectual property management, and structural/organisational operations. We argue that the effective realisation of UAM requires a robust framework to implement these initiatives. This framework must strike a delicate balance between addressing public health needs, incentivising research and development, and ensuring affordability. Achieving such a balance encompasses a careful oversight and collaboration between national and international regulatory bodies.

South Africa offers universal health coverage through large public and private systems. The private system is characterised by a regulated market for health insurance, referred to domestically as medical schemes. From 2000, the private system was undergoing a reform process consistent with theoretical approaches for regulated competition for health insurance. However, from 2008, the reform process was interrupted, leaving in place a partial framework which included open enrolment, community rating and regulated minimum benefits but excluded, inter alia, risk equalisation. The incomplete reform, however, provides an opportunity to examine the system outcomes that result from a partial approach. This paper therefore reviews the system outcomes of the partial reform using a descriptive data analysis. The findings then inform an evaluation of the extent to which the preconditions for regulated competition have been met as indicated by the theory of regulated competition in healthcare. The paper therefore highlights the areas where regulatory interventions need to be prioritised in South Africa to achieve the objectives of regulatory competition that are able to achieve access, fairness and efficiency. The analysis points to significant failures at the level of health insurance competition in South Africa with resulting outcomes consistent with the theory of regulated competition.

The policy-making process for health financing in most places lacks equity, failing to adequately consider the voices of ordinary citizens, residents, and especially those facing significant disadvantage. Procedural fairness is about addressing this imbalance, which requires a recalibration of power dynamics, ensuring that decision-making incorporates a more diverse range of perspectives. In this comment, we highlight the important contributions made by the report ‘Open and inclusive: Fair processes for financing universal health coverage’ in furthering the understanding and importance of procedural fairness in health financing decision-making especially as it relates to the three sub-functions of financing – revenue raising, pooling, and purchasing. We also argue for the importance of conceptual clarity – especially as to the added value of procedural fairness vis-à-vis accountability – and critically review the proposed framework for procedural fairness, emphasising the role of voice as the linchpin to advancing equity in influence.

During the 1970s and 1980s, over 30,000 people in the UK were infected with HIV and/or hepatitis C because of treatment with blood and blood products for conditions such as haemophilia or through blood transfusion. We used the social harms perspective to understand the experiences of those affected. We conducted in-depth interviews with 41 infected people and 11 family members and analysed the data according to five dimensions of social harm: physical harms, psychological harms, cultural harms, economic harms, and harms of misrecognition. We found that people were harmed by the medical system, the social context that perpetuated stigma and shame against them, and successive governments being largely unwilling to address the many health, social, and economic impacts of infection on families. What stood out were the many reports of harms of misrecognition, which were often experienced as more irreconcilable than the circumstances of infection itself. They were also harms that have been largely ignored.

While patient safety encompasses a broad field of work, much of the research focuses on physical harm and medical error. The social harms lens can provide important insights into patient safety incidents as it can help explain the complexity of the different dimensions of harm that individuals and their families experience.