Universal Health Coverage to counteract the economic impact of the COVID-19 infection

In December 2019, the first case of Coronavirus was identified. The novel virus appears to be highly contagious and is rapidly spreading worldwide, becoming a pandemic. The disease is causing a high toll of deaths. Effective public health response to a new infectious disease is expected to mitigate and counteract its negative impact on the population. However, time and economic-financial constraints, as well as uncertainty, can jeopardize the answer. Appropriate financing of the health system and ensuring equitable access to health services for all can protect individuals against high medical costs, which is one of the most important goals of any health system. Financing profoundly affects the performance of the health system, and any policy that the health system decides to implement or not directly depends on the amount of available funding. Various countries are injecting new funding to cope with the disease and prevent it faster. In addition to psychological support and increased social participation for the prevention, control, and treatment of COVID-19, extensive financial support to governments by the community should be considered. Developed and rich countries should support countries that do not have financial viability. This disease cannot be controlled without international cooperation. The experience of the COVID-19 should be a lesson for further developing universal health coverage in all countries. In addition to promoting equity in health, appropriate infrastructure is provided to address these crises. Governments should make a stronger political commitment to implement this crucial policy fully

Iran's Health System Transformation Plan: A SWOT analysis

Background: Societies are characterized by evolving health needs, which become more challenging throughout time, to which health system should respond. As such, a constant monitoring and a periodic review and reformation of healthcare systems are of fundamental importance to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare services delivery, equity, and sustainable funding. The establishment of President Rouhani's government in Iran, on May 5, 2014, the settlement of the new Ministry of Health and Medical Education administration (MoHME) and the need for change in the provision of healthcare services has led to the "Health System Transformation Plan" (HSTP). The aim of the current investigation was to critically evaluate the health transformation plan in Iran. Methods: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis enables to identify and assess the strengths and weaknesses within an organization or program, as well as the threats and opportunities outside the given organization or program. To identify SWOT of the HSTP in Iran, all articles concerning this program published in scholarly databases as well as in the gray literature were systematically searched. Subsequently, all factors identified at the first round were thematically classified into four categories and for reaching consensus on this classification, the list of points and factors was sent to 40 experts - policy- and decisionmakers, professors and academicians, health department workers, health activists, journalists. Results: Thirty-four subjects expressed comments on classification. Incorporating their suggestions, the SWOT analysis of Iran's HSTP was revised, finalized and then performed. Conclusion: HSTP in Iran, like many of the initiatives that have been recently introduced and not fully implemented, have various challenges, difficulties and pitfalls that health policymakers need to pay attention to. Interacting with criticisms, taking into account public opinion and strengthening the plan can make the project more effective, and it can be anticipated that in the future, better conditions in the health sector will be achieved

Intersectoral collaboration in the management of non-communicable disease’s risk factors in Iran: stakeholders and social network analysis

Introduction As the major cause of premature death worldwide, noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are complex and multidimensional, prevention and control of which need global, national, local, and multisectoral collaboration. Governmental stakeholder analysis and social network analysis (SNA) are among the recognized techniques to understand and improve collaboration. Through stakeholder analysis, social network analysis, and identifying the leverage points, we investigated the intersectoral collaboration (ISC) in preventing and controlling NCDs-related risk factors in Iran. Methods This is a mixed-methods study based on semi-structured interviews and reviewing of the legal documents and acts to identify and assess the interest, position, and power of collective decision-making centers on NCDs, followed by the social network analysis of related councils and the risk factors of NCDs. We used Gephi software version 0.9.2 to facilitate SNA. We determined the supreme councils' interest, position, power, and influence on NCDs and related risk factors. The Intervention Level Framework (ILF) and expert opinion were utilized to identify interventions to enhance inter-sectoral collaboration. Results We identified 113 national collective decision-making centers. Five councils had the highest evaluation score for the four criteria (Interest, Position, Power, and Influence), including the Supreme Council for Health and Food Security (SCHFS), Supreme Council for Standards (SCS), Supreme Council for Environmental Protection (SCIP), Supreme Council for Health Insurance (SCHI) and Supreme Council of the Centers of Excellence for Medical Sciences. We calculated degree, in degree, out-degree, weighted out-degree, closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, and Eigenvector centrality for all councils. Supreme Council for Standards and SCHFS have the highest betweenness centrality, showing Node's higher importance in information flow. Interventions to facilitate inter-sectoral collaboration were identified and reported based on Intervention Level Framework's five levels (ILF). ConclusionA variety of stakeholders influences the risk factors of non-communicable diseases. Through an investigation of stakeholders and their social networks, we determined the primary actors for each risk factor. Through the different (levels and types) of interventions identified in this study, the MoHME can leverage the ability of identified stakeholders to improve risk factors management. The proposed interventions for identified stakeholders could facilitate intersectoral collaboration, which is critical for more effective prevention and control of modifiable risk factors for NCDs in Iran. Supreme councils and their members could serve as key hubs for implementing targeted inter-sectoral approaches to address NCDs' risk factors

Assessing Iran’s health system according to the COVID-19 strategic preparedness and response plan of the World Health Organization: health policy and historical implications

Background: The role of health systems in the management of disasters including natural hazards like outbreaks and pandemics, is crucial and vital. Healthcare systems which are unprepared to properly deal with crises are much more likely to expose their public health workers and health personnel to harm and will not be able to deliver healthcare provisions in critical situations. This can lead to a drammatic toll of deaths, even in developed countries. The possible occurrence of global crises has prompted the WHO to devise instruments, guidelines and tools to assess the capacity of countries to deal with disasters. Iran’s health system has been hit hardly by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we aimed to assess its preparedness and response to the outbreak. Methods: The present investigation was designed as a qualitative study. We utilized the “COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan” devised by WHO as a conceptual framework. Results: The dimension/pillars which scored the highest was national laboratories, followed by surveillance, rapid response teams and case investigations. Risk communication and community engagement was another pillar receiving a high score, followed by infection prevention and control and by country-level coordination, planning and monitoring. The pillar/dimensions receiving the lowest scores were operational support and logistics; case management; and points of entry. Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic has represented an unprecedent event that has challenged healthcare systems and facilities worldwide, highlighting their weaknesses and the need for inter-sectoral cooperation and collaboration during the crisis. Analyzing these experiences and capitalizing on them, by strengthening them,will help countries to be more prepared to face opossible future crises

Analysis and evolution of health policies in Iran through policy triangle framework during the last thirty years: a systematic review of the historical period from 1994 to 2021

Background: Health policy analysis as a multi-disciplinary approach to public policy illustrates the need for interventions that highlight and address important policy issues, improve the policy formulation and implementation process and lead to better health outcomes. Various theories and frameworks have been contributed as the foundation for the analysis of policy in various studies. This study aimed to analyze health policies during the historical period of the almost last 30 years in Iran using policy triangle framework. Method: To conduct the systematic review international databases (PubMed / Medline, Scopus, Web of Sciences, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, The Cochran Library) and Iranian databases from January 1994 to January 2021 using relevant keywords. A thematic qualitative analysis approach was used for the synthesis and analysis of data. Results: Out of 731 articles, 25 articles were selected and analyzed. Studies used health policy triangle framework to analyze policies in the Iranian health sector has been published since 2014. All the included studies were retrospective. The main focus of most of studies for the analysis was on the context and process of polices as the elements of the policy triangle. Conclusion: The main focus of health policy analysis studies in Iran over the last thirty years was on the context and process of polices. Although range of actors within and outside the Iran government influence health policies but in many policy processes the power and the role of all actors or players involved in the policy are not recognized carefully. Also, Iran's health sector suffers from lack of a proper framework for evaluating various implemented policies

Exploring the landscape of health technology assessment in Iran: Perspectives from stakeholders on needs, demand and supply

Background: The evaluation of health technologies plays a crucial role in the allocation of resources and the promotion of equitable healthcare access, known as health technology assessment (HTA). This study focuses on Iran’s efforts to integrate HTA and aims to gain insights into stakeholder perspectives regarding capacity needs, demand and implementation. Methods: In this study, we employed the HTA introduction status analysis questionnaire developed by the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), which has been utilized in various countries. The questionnaire consisted of 12 questions divided into three sections: HTA need, demand and supply. To identify key informants, we conducted a literature review and consulted with the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MOHME), as well we experts in policy-making, health service provision and HTA. We selected stakeholders who held decision-making positions in the healthcare domain. A modified Persian version of the questionnaire was administered online from September 2022 to January 2023 and was pretested for clarity. The analysis of the collected data involved quantitative methods for descriptive analysis and qualitative methods for thematic analysis. Results: In this study, a total of 103 questionnaires were distributed, resulting in a favourable response rate of 61% from 63 participants, of whom 68% identified as male. The participants, when assessing the needs of HTA, rated allocative efficiency as the highest priority, with a mean rating of 8.53, thereby highlighting its crucial role in optimizing resource allocation. Furthermore, healthcare quality, with a mean rating of 8.17, and transparent decision-making, with a mean rating of 7.92, were highly valued for their impact on treatment outcomes and accountability. The importance of budget control (mean rating 7.58) and equity (mean rating 7.25) were also acknowledged, as they contribute to maintaining sustainability and promoting social justice. In terms of HTA demand, safety concerns were identified as the top priority, closely followed by effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, with an expanded perspective on the economy. However, limited access to local data was reported, which arose from various factors including data collection practices, system fragmentation and privacy concerns. The priorities of HTA users encompassed coverage, payment reform, benefits design, guidelines, service delivery and technology registration. Evidence generation involved the participation of medical universities, research centres and government bodies, albeit with ongoing challenges in research quality, data access and funding. The study highlights government support and medical education as notable strengths in this context. Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of Iran’s HTA landscape, considering its capacity, demand and implementation aspects. It underlines the vital role of HTA in optimizing resources, improving healthcare quality and promoting equity. The study also sheds light on the strengths of evidence generation in the country, while simultaneously identifying challenges related to data access and system fragmentation. In terms of policy priorities, evidence-based decision-making emerges as crucial for enhancing healthcare access and integrating technology. The study stresses the need for evidence-based practices, a robust HTA infrastructure and collaboration among stakeholders to achieve better healthcare outcomes in Iran

Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background Health system planning requires careful assessment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) epidemiology, but data for morbidity and mortality of this disease are scarce or non-existent in many countries. We estimated the global, regional, and national burden of CKD, as well as the burden of cardiovascular disease and gout attributable to impaired kidney function, for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017. We use the term CKD to refer to the morbidity and mortality that can be directly attributed to all stages of CKD, and we use the term impaired kidney function to refer to the additional risk of CKD from cardiovascular disease and gout. Methods The main data sources we used were published literature, vital registration systems, end-stage kidney disease registries, and household surveys. Estimates of CKD burden were produced using a Cause of Death Ensemble model and a Bayesian meta-regression analytical tool, and included incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). A comparative risk assessment approach was used to estimate the proportion of cardiovascular diseases and gout burden attributable to impaired kidney function. Findings Globally, in 2017, 1·2 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 1·2 to 1·3) people died from CKD. The global all-age mortality rate from CKD increased 41·5% (95% UI 35·2 to 46·5) between 1990 and 2017, although there was no significant change in the age-standardised mortality rate (2·8%, −1·5 to 6·3). In 2017, 697·5 million (95% UI 649·2 to 752·0) cases of all-stage CKD were recorded, for a global prevalence of 9·1% (8·5 to 9·8). The global all-age prevalence of CKD increased 29·3% (95% UI 26·4 to 32·6) since 1990, whereas the age-standardised prevalence remained stable (1·2%, −1·1 to 3·5). CKD resulted in 35·8 million (95% UI 33·7 to 38·0) DALYs in 2017, with diabetic nephropathy accounting for almost a third of DALYs. Most of the burden of CKD was concentrated in the three lowest quintiles of Socio-demographic Index (SDI). In several regions, particularly Oceania, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, the burden of CKD was much higher than expected for the level of development, whereas the disease burden in western, eastern, and central sub-Saharan Africa, east Asia, south Asia, central and eastern Europe, Australasia, and western Europe was lower than expected. 1·4 million (95% UI 1·2 to 1·6) cardiovascular disease-related deaths and 25·3 million (22·2 to 28·9) cardiovascular disease DALYs were attributable to impaired kidney function. Interpretation Kidney disease has a major effect on global health, both as a direct cause of global morbidity and mortality and as an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. CKD is largely preventable and treatable and deserves greater attention in global health policy decision making, particularly in locations with low and middle SDI

Measuring universal health coverage based on an index of effective coverage of health services in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

© 2020 Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves all people receiving the health services they need, of high quality, without experiencing financial hardship. Making progress towards UHC is a policy priority for both countries and global institutions, as highlighted by the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW13). Measuring effective coverage at the health-system level is important for understanding whether health services are aligned with countries' health profiles and are of sufficient quality to produce health gains for populations of all ages. Methods: Based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we assessed UHC effective coverage for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Drawing from a measurement framework developed through WHO's GPW13 consultation, we mapped 23 effective coverage indicators to a matrix representing health service types (eg, promotion, prevention, and treatment) and five population-age groups spanning from reproductive and newborn to older adults (≥65 years). Effective coverage indicators were based on intervention coverage or outcome-based measures such as mortality-to-incidence ratios to approximate access to quality care; outcome-based measures were transformed to values on a scale of 0–100 based on the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile of location-year values. We constructed the UHC effective coverage index by weighting each effective coverage indicator relative to its associated potential health gains, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years for each location-year and population-age group. For three tests of validity (content, known-groups, and convergent), UHC effective coverage index performance was generally better than that of other UHC service coverage indices from WHO (ie, the current metric for SDG indicator 3.8.1 on UHC service coverage), the World Bank, and GBD 2017. We quantified frontiers of UHC effective coverage performance on the basis of pooled health spending per capita, representing UHC effective coverage index levels achieved in 2019 relative to country-level government health spending, prepaid private expenditures, and development assistance for health. To assess current trajectories towards the GPW13 UHC billion target—1 billion more people benefiting from UHC by 2023—we estimated additional population equivalents with UHC effective coverage from 2018 to 2023. Findings: Globally, performance on the UHC effective coverage index improved from 45·8 (95% uncertainty interval 44·2–47·5) in 1990 to 60·3 (58·7–61·9) in 2019, yet country-level UHC effective coverage in 2019 still spanned from 95 or higher in Japan and Iceland to lower than 25 in Somalia and the Central African Republic. Since 2010, sub-Saharan Africa showed accelerated gains on the UHC effective coverage index (at an average increase of 2·6% [1·9–3·3] per year up to 2019); by contrast, most other GBD super-regions had slowed rates of progress in 2010–2019 relative to 1990–2010. Many countries showed lagging performance on effective coverage indicators for non-communicable diseases relative to those for communicable diseases and maternal and child health, despite non-communicable diseases accounting for a greater proportion of potential health gains in 2019, suggesting that many health systems are not keeping pace with the rising non-communicable disease burden and associated population health needs. In 2019, the UHC effective coverage index was associated with pooled health spending per capita (r=0·79), although countries across the development spectrum had much lower UHC effective coverage than is potentially achievable relative to their health spending. Under maximum efficiency of translating health spending into UHC effective coverage performance, countries would need to reach $1398 pooled health spending per capita (US$ adjusted for purchasing power parity) in order to achieve 80 on the UHC effective coverage index. From 2018 to 2023, an estimated 388·9 million (358·6–421·3) more population equivalents would have UHC effective coverage, falling well short of the GPW13 target of 1 billion more people benefiting from UHC during this time. Current projections point to an estimated 3·1 billion (3·0–3·2) population equivalents still lacking UHC effective coverage in 2023, with nearly a third (968·1 million [903·5–1040·3]) residing in south Asia. Interpretation: The present study demonstrates the utility of measuring effective coverage and its role in supporting improved health outcomes for all people—the ultimate goal of UHC and its achievement. Global ambitions to accelerate progress on UHC service coverage are increasingly unlikely unless concerted action on non-communicable diseases occurs and countries can better translate health spending into improved performance. Focusing on effective coverage and accounting for the world's evolving health needs lays the groundwork for better understanding how close—or how far—all populations are in benefiting from UHC. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

The global, regional, and national burden of stomach cancer in 195 countries, 1990-2017 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study 2017

Background: Stomach cancer is a major health problem in many countries. Understanding the current burden of stomach cancer and the differential trends across various locations is essential for formulating effective preventive strategies. We report on the incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) due to stomach cancer in 195 countries and territories from 21 regions between 1990 and 2017. Methods: Estimates from GBD 2017 were used to analyse the incidence, mortality, and DALYs due to stomach cancer at the global, regional, and national levels. The rates were standardised to the GBD world population and reported per 100 000 population as age-standardised incidence rates, age-standardised death rates, and age-standardised DALY rates. All estimates were generated with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Findings: In 2017, more than 1·22 million (95% UI 1·19–1·25) incident cases of stomach cancer occurred worldwide, and nearly 865 000 people (848 000–885 000) died of stomach cancer, contributing to 19·1 million (18·7–19·6) DALYs. The highest age-standardised incidence rates in 2017 were seen in the high-income Asia Pacific (29·5, 28·2–31·0 per 100 000 population) and east Asia (28·6, 27·3–30·0 per 100 000 population) regions, with nearly half of the global incident cases occurring in China. Compared with 1990, in 2017 more than 356 000 more incident cases of stomach cancer were estimated, leading to nearly 96 000 more deaths. Despite the increase in absolute numbers, the worldwide age-standardised rates of stomach cancer (incidence, deaths, and DALYs) have declined since 1990. The drop in the disease burden was associated with improved Socio-demographic Index. Globally, 38·2% (21·1–57·8) of the age-standardised DALYs were attributable to high-sodium diet in both sexes combined, and 24·5% (20·0–28·9) of the age-standardised DALYs were attributable to smoking in males. Interpretation: Our findings provide insight into the changing burden of stomach cancer, which is useful in planning local strategies and monitoring their progress. To this end, specific local strategies should be tailored to each country's risk factor profile. Beyond the current decline in age-standardised incidence and death rates, a decrease in the absolute number of cases and deaths will be possible if the burden in east Asia, where currently almost half of the incident cases and deaths occur, is further reduced. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Estimating global injuries morbidity and mortality : methods and data used in the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study

Background: While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods: In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results: GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions: GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future