Fiscal federalism vs fiscal decentralization in healthcare: a conceptual framework

INTRODUCTION: Fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization are distinct policy options in public services in general and healthcare in particular, with possibly opposed effects on equity, effectiveness, and efficiency. However, the pertinent discourse often reflects confusion between the concepts or conflation thereof. METHODS: This paper performs a narrative review of theoretical literature on decentralization. The study offers clear definitions of the concepts of fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization and provides an overview of the potential implications of each policy for healthcare systems. RESULTS: The interpretation of the literature identified three different dimensions of decentralization: political, administrative, economic. Economic decentralization can be further implemented through two different policy options: fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization. Fiscal federalism is the transfer of spending authority of a centrally pooled public health budget to local governments or authorities. Countries like the UK, Cuba, Denmark, and Brazil mostly rely on fiscal federalism mechanisms for healthcare financing. Fiscal decentralization consists of transferring both pooling and spending responsibilities from the central government to local authorities. Contrarily to fiscal federalism, the implementation of fiscal decentralization requires as a precondition the fragmentation of the national pool into many local pools. The restructuring of the pooling system may limit the cross-subsidization effect between high- and low-income groups and areas that a central pool guarantees; thus, severely affecting local equality and equity. With the limited availability of local public resources in poorer regions, the quality of services drops, increasing the disparity gap between areas. Evidence from Italy, Spain, China, and Ivory Coast -countries with a strong fiscal decentralization element in their healthcare services- suggests that fiscal decentralization has positive effects on the infant mortality rate. However, it decreases healthcare resources as well as access to services, fostering spatial inequities. CONCLUSION: If public resources are and remain adequate, allocation follows equitable criteria, and local communities are involved in the decision-making debate, fiscal federalism -rather than fiscal decentralization- appear to be an adequate policy option to improve the healthcare services and population's health nationwide and achieve health sector economic decentralization. HIPPOKRATIA 2020, 24(3): 107-113

Patients' Perception of Quality of Pre-Operative Informed Consent in Athens, Greece: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND: We sought to perform a study to record and evaluate patients' views of the way surgeons communicate informed consent (IC) in Greece. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A prospective pilot study was carried out in Athens from 9/2007 to 4/2008. The study sample was extracted from patients, operated by eight different surgeons, who volunteered to fill in a post-surgery self-report questionnaire on IC. A composite delivered information index and a patient-physician relationship index were constructed for the purposes of the analysis. In total, 77 patients (42 males) volunteered to respond to the questionnaire. The delivered information index scores ranged from 3 to 10, the mean score was 8, and the standard deviation (SD) was 1.9. All patients were aware of their underlying diagnosis and reason for surgery. However, a considerable proportion of the respondents (14.3%) achieved a score below or equal to 5. The patient-physician relationship scores ranged from 0 to 20, the mean score was 16 and the standard deviation (SD) was 4.3. The better the patient-physician relationship, the more information was finally delivered to the patient from the physician (Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient was 0.4 and p<0.001). Delivered information index was significantly higher among participants who comprehended the right to informed consent, compared to participants who did not (p<0.001), and among participants who were given information regarding other possible therapeutic options (p = 0.001). 43% of the respondents answered that less than 10 minutes were spent on the consent process, 58.4% of patients stated that they had not been informed about other possible therapeutic choices and 28.6% did not really comprehend their legal rights to IC. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the inherent limitations and the small sample size that do not permit to draw any firm conclusions, results indicate that a successful IC process may be associated with specific elements such as the patient-physician relationship, the time spent by the physician to inform the patient, a participant's comprehension of the right to IC and the provision of information regarding other possible therapeutic options

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on refugees and asylum seekers in Greece: A retrospective analysis of national surveillance data from 2020.

Background: Migrants globally, including refugees and asylum seekers, have experienced adverse clinical and socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. For approximately 56,000 refugees and asylum seekers in Reception and Identification Centers (RICs) and Reception Sites (RS) in Greece, living in severely substandard living conditions, prevention measures have been impossible with limited provision in terms of routine testing, surveillance, and access to healthcare. These migrant populations have experienced prolonged lockdowns and restricted movement since the pandemic began. We aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on refugees and asylum seekers in reception facilities in Greece and explore implications for policy and practice. Methods: A retrospective analysis of policy documents and national surveillance data was conducted to identify COVID-19 outbreaks and estimate incidence among asylum seekers and refugees residing in these camps during the first 9 months of the epidemic in Greece (26th February - 15th November 2020). Incidence proportion (IP) of COVID-19 confirmed cases was calculated for three population groups (refugees and asylum seekers in RICs, refugees and asylum seekers in RSs, and the general population in Greece) during three time periods (first wave, second wave, and overall across the 9-month period). Findings: Twenty-five COVID-19 outbreaks were identified in refugee and asylum seeker reception facilities, with 6 (85.7%) of 7 RICs and 18 (56.3%) of 32 RSs reporting at least one outbreak during the study period. The overall 9-month COVID-19 IP among refugee and asylum seeker populations residing in RSs on the Greek mainland was 1758 cases per 100,000 population; in RICs the incidence was 2052 cases per 100,000 population. Compared to the general population the risk of COVID-19 infection among refugees and asylum seekers in reception facilities was 2.5 to 3 times higher (p-value<0.001). The risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection was higher among refugee and asylum seeker populations in RSs on the Greek mainland (IP ratio: 2.45; 95% CI: 2.25-2.68) but higher still among refugee and asylum seeker populations in RICs in the Greek islands and the land border with Turkey (IP ratio: 2.86; 95% CI: 2.64-3.10), where living conditions are particularly poor. Interpretation: We identified high levels of COVID-19 transmission among refugees and asylum seekers in reception facilities in Greece. The risk of COVID-19 infection among these enclosed population groups has been significantly higher than the general population of Greece, and risk increases as living conditions deteriorate. These data have immediate implications for policy and practice. Strategies are now needed to ensure refugee and asylum seeker populations are included in national response plans to reduce transmission in at-risk groups for COVID-19, alongside inclusion in plans for COVID-19 vaccine roll out

Mapping Health Literacy Research in the European Union: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background: To examine and compare the research productivity on selected fields related to health literacy of the curren

Payments and quality of care in private for-profit and public hospitals in Greece

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Empirical evidence on how ownership type affects the quality and cost of medical care is growing, and debate on these topics is ongoing. Despite the fact that the private sector is a major provider of hospital services in Greece, little comparative information on private versus public sector hospitals is available. The aim of the present study was to describe and compare the operation and performance of private for-profit (PFP) and public hospitals in Greece, focusing on differences in nurse staffing rates, average lengths of stay (ALoS), and Social Health Insurance (SHI) payments for hospital care per patient discharged.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Five different datasets were prepared and analyzed, two of which were derived from information provided by the National Statistical Service (NSS) of Greece and the other three from data held by the three largest SHI schemes in the country. All data referred to the 3-year period from 2001 to 2003.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>PFP hospitals in Greece are smaller than public hospitals, with lower patient occupancy, and have lower staffing rates of all types of nurses and highly qualified nurses compared with public hospitals. Calculation of ALoS using NSS data yielded mixed results, whereas calculations of ALoS and SHI payments using SHI data gave results clearly favoring the public hospital sector in terms of cost-efficiency; in all years examined, over all specialties and all SHI schemes included in our study, unweighted ALoS and SHI payments for hospital care per discharge were higher for PFP facilities.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In a mixed healthcare system, such as that in Greece, significant performance differences were observed between PFP and public hospitals. Close monitoring of healthcare provision by hospital ownership type will be essential to permit evidence-based decisions on the future of the public/private mix in terms of healthcare provision.</p