Hyvinvoinnin turvaamisen rajat : Näköaloja talouskriisiin ja hyvinvointivaltion kehitykseen Suomessa

Miten syksyllä 2008 alkanut globaali talouskriisi vaikuttaa pitkällä aikavälillä suomalaiseen hyvinvointivaltioon? Jos olisimme antiikin Kreikassa, voisimme mennä Delfoin oraakkelin luo Apollonin temppeliin ja esittää tämän kysymyksen ennuspapittarelle. Eräänä lokakuun päivänä 2009 Kelan tiloihin kokoontui joukko suomalaisia hyvinvointivaltion huippuasiantuntijoita. He kertoivat julkisen talouden, kansalaisten toimeentulon ja terveyden näkökulmista kolmelle ”professori-oraakkelille” eli tanskalaiselle Nina Smithille, ruotsalaiselle Johan Fritzellille ja saksalaisille Karl Hinrichsille Suomen kokemuksista edellisestä, 1990-luvun alun lamasta, sen jälkeisestä kehityksestä sekä omista tulevaisuuden arvioistaan. Seuraavana päivänä oraakkelit lausuivat ennustuksensa, joka paljastetaan tässä raportissa.10,00 euro

An analysis of ophthalmology services in Finland - has the time come for a Public-Private Partnership?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We studied the prerequisites for Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in the context of the Finnish health care system and more specifically in the field of ophthalmology. PPP can be defined as a more or less permanent cooperation between public and private actors, through which the joint products or services are developed and in which the risks, costs and profits are shared.</p> <p>The Finnish eye care services system is heterogeneous with several different providers and can be regarded as sub-optimal in terms of overall resource use. What is more, the public sector is suffering from a shortage of ophthalmologists, which further decreases its possibilities to meet the present needs. As ophthalmology has traditionally been a medical specialty with a substantial private sector involvement in service provision, PPP could be a feasible policy to be used in the field. We thus ask the following research question: Is there, and to what extent, an open window of opportunity for PPP?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In addition to the previously published literature, the research data consisted of 17 thematic interviews with public and private experts in the field of ophthalmology. The analysis was conducted in two stages. First, a literature-based content analysis was used to explore the prerequisites for PPP. Second, Kingdon's (1995) multiple streams theory was used to study the opening of the window of opportunity for PPP.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Public and private parties reported similar problems in the current situation but defined them differently. Also, there is no consensus on policy alternatives. Public opinion seems to be somewhat uncertain as to the attitudes towards private service providers. The analysis thus showed that although there are prerequisites for PPP, the time has not yet come for a Public-Private Partnership.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Should the window open fully, the emergence of policy entrepreneurs and an opportunity for a win-win situation between public and private organizations are required.</p

Priority setting for the implementation of artemisinin-based combination therapy policy in Tanzania: evaluation against the accountability for reasonableness framework

\ud Priority setting for artemisinin-based antimalarial drugs has become an integral part of malaria treatment policy change in malaria-endemic countries. Although these drugs are more efficacious, they are also more costly than the failing drugs. When Tanzania changed its National Malaria Treatment Policy in 2006, priority setting was an inevitable challenge. Artemether-lumefantrine was prioritised as the first-line drug for the management of uncomplicated malaria to be available at a subsidized price at public and faith-based healthcare facilities. This paper describes the priority-setting process, which involved the selection of a new first-line antimalarial drug in the implementation of artemisinin-based combination therapy policy. These descriptions were further evaluated against the four conditions of the accountability for easonableness framework. According to this framework, fair decisions must satisfy a set of publicity, relevance, appeals, and revision and enforcement conditions.In-depth interviews were held with key informants using pretested interview guides, supplemented with a review of the treatment guideline. Purposeful sampling was used in order to explore the perceptions of people with different backgrounds and perspectives. The analysis followed an editing organising style. Publicity: The selection decision of artemether-lumefantrine but not the rationale behind it was publicised through radio, television, and newspaper channels in the national language, Swahili. Relevance: The decision was grounded on evidences of clinical efficacy, safety, affordability, and formulation profile. Stakeholders were not adequately involved. There was neither an appeals mechanism to challenge the decision nor enforcement mechanisms to guarantee fairness of the decision outcomes. The priority-setting decision to use artemether-lumefantrine as the first-line antimalarial drug failed to satisfy the four conditions of the accountability for reasonableness framework. In our understanding, this is the first study to evaluate priority-setting decisions for new drugs in Tanzania against the accountability for reasonableness framework. In addition to the demand for enhanced stakeholder involvement, publicity, and transparency, the study also calls for the institution of formal appeals, revision, and regulatory mechanisms in the future change of malaria treatment policies.\u

How is the New Public Management applied in the occupational health care system? - decision-makers' and OH personnel's views in Finland

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In many countries occupational health care system is in change. Occupational health studies are mainly focused on occupational health substance and content. This study offers new perspectives on municipal OHS and its operations from management perspective.</p> <p>Aim</p> <p>The aim of this study is to analyse how New Public Management (NPM) doctrines are applied in the Finnish occupational health care system (OHS). The main focus is to describe and compare the views of decision-makers' and OH workers within the framework of NPM.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The data were collected by semi-structured interviews from 17 municipal decision-makers' and 26 municipal OH workers. Data was analyzed by examining coded data in a theory-driven way according to Hood's doctrine of NPM.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The doctrines were not as compatible with the OH personnel view as with the decision-makers' view. Decision-makers and OH personnel highlighted the strict criteria required for operation evaluation. Moreover, decision-makers strongly accentuated professional management in the public sector and the reorganization of public sector units. These were not equally relevant in OH personnel views. In OH personnel views, other doctrines (more attention to performance and accomplishments, emphasizing and augmentation of the competition and better control of public expense and means test) were not similarly in evidence, only weak evidence was observed when their importance viewed as medium by decision-makers. Neither of the respondents group kept the doctrine of management models of the private sector relevant.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The NPM and Hoods doctrine fitted well with OH research. The doctrine brought out view differences and similarities between decision-makers and OH personnel. For example, policymakers highlighted more strongly the structural change by emphasizing professional management compared to OH personnel. The need for reorganization of municipal OH, regardless of different operational preconditions, was obvious for both decision-makers and OH personnel. The adaptation of more clarify management to a municipal context is not trouble-free. The municipality systemic structure, complex operational environment, and reconciliation of political and officer authority set challenges to management of municipalities.</p

Medical Students' Exposure to and Attitudes about the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Systematic Review

A systematic review of published studies reveals that undergraduate medical students may experience substantial exposure to pharmaceutical marketing, and that this contact may be associated with positive attitudes about marketing

Financing intersectoral action for health: a systematic review of co-financing models.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the social and other non-biological determinants of health largely depends on policies and programmes implemented outside the health sector. While there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that tackle these upstream determinants, the health sector does not typically prioritise them. From a health perspective, they may not be cost-effective because their non-health outcomes tend to be ignored. Non-health sectors may, in turn, undervalue interventions with important co-benefits for population health, given their focus on their own sectoral objectives. The societal value of win-win interventions with impacts on multiple development goals may, therefore, be under-valued and under-resourced, as a result of siloed resource allocation mechanisms. Pooling budgets across sectors could ensure the total multi-sectoral value of these interventions is captured, and sectors' shared goals are achieved more efficiently. Under such a co-financing approach, the cost of interventions with multi-sectoral outcomes would be shared by benefiting sectors, stimulating mutually beneficial cross-sectoral investments. Leveraging funding in other sectors could off-set flat-lining global development assistance for health and optimise public spending. Although there have been experiments with such cross-sectoral co-financing in several settings, there has been limited analysis to examine these models, their performance and their institutional feasibility. AIM: This study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded. RESULTS: Of 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes. CONCLUSION: Co-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals