Sustaining the push to elimination and beyond: Rwanda’s policy response to hepatitis B and C
For decades, Rwanda has battled significant levels of hepatitis B (HBV) and C (HCV) infections. Sidonie Uwimpuhwe, Rwanda’s Country Director at the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) reports that an estimated 4% of the population were with living with HCV, whilst HBV prevalence was around 2% when the programme started. The burden is more pronounced in those over the age of 55, where HCV prevalence rises to 16%.1 The scale of infection is also slightly higher in vulnerable populations, such as those living with other conditions like HIV.
17549
Related content

Putting money on the table: Nigeria’s policy response to hepatitis B and C
Nigeria has seen a steady increase in the prevalence of viral hepatitis over the past few decades. The introduction of a routine immunisation programme in 2004 for hepatitis B contributed to a drop in the overall rate of hepatitis infection in children; the number of cases in adults continues to rise.1
The Nigeria HIV/AIDS Indicator and Impact Survey (NAIIS) in 2018 estimates that the overall prevalence of hepatitis B (HBV) is 8.1% and 1.1% for hepatitis C (HCV). This means that an estimated 19 million Nigerians are living with HBV or HCV.2
Hepatitis B and C are particularly deadly forms of the virus, as they can cause chronic illnesses leading to liver cirrhosis and cancer. Since HIV, HBV and HCV are all transmitted through blood and other body fluids, people are often “co-infected” with more than one of these infections. Co-infection rates remain a cause for concern, with the NAIIS survey revealing rates of 9.6% and 1.1% for HIV/HBV and HIV/ HCV co-infections respectively in people living with HIV.3
However, Dr Ruth Bello, Consultant Hepatologist in Nasarawa State highlights that the burden in rural and marginalised Nigerian communities has been found to be higher than the national average. She says that over the last three years in Nasarawa State, the prevalence of HBV and HCV was reported to be 10% and 13.2% respectively, Figure 1 summarises the key factors contributing to the transmission of viral hepatitis in Nigeria, across community, healthcare system and government factors.
Low levels of health awareness and poor-health seeking behaviours are key drivers
Both HBV and HCV infections are preventable through the avoidance of risk factors. For HBV, although there is currently no cure, a vaccine is available. Mother-to-child (or vertical) transmission is one of the main routes of infection, accounting for 90-95% of chronic childhood HBV infection that persists into adulthood.4 Despite free HBV vaccination being available via the routine childhood immunisation programme in Nigeria, the uptake remains poor, with vaccine coverage estimated to be around 51%.2 Dr David Uzochukwu, a general practitioner specialising in hepatitis diagnosis and treatment, attributes this partly to poor health knowledge with individuals against vaccination as a practice. Dr Danjuma Adda, Founder of Chagro Care Trust and patient advocate agrees, explaining that the poor uptake rate is especially noticeable in more rural and socio-economically deprived areas, where culture and religion have a strong influence, and individuals often seek medical advice from alternative medical practitioners and herbalists.
Apart from vaccination, screening is vital to find how many people in the country are living with either an HBV or HCV infection, and to link them to the right care. On World Hepatitis Day 2020, the World Hepatitis Alliance chose the theme “find the missing millions” to highlight those people who remain undiagnosed and therefore untreated. The nature of the infections means that HBV and HCV are usually asymptomatic and can go unnoticed until individuals’ livers are significantly damaged. Often described as Nigeria’s silent killer, figures show that more than half the population is likely to have never been tested.8 Poor health-seeking behaviours are a major challenge that makes screening for viral hepatitis difficult in Nigeria. Similarly, most Nigerians do not attend annual medical checks where there is the opportunity for infections to be detected early. In parts of northern Nigeria where there are areas dealing with conflict, this further impacts the success of advocacy, screening and immunisation programmes.5 Organisations such as the Society of Family Health (SFH) in Nigeria recognise the importance of bringing health closer to individuals and their homes to improve access to, and uptake of, essential health information and services. For example, SFH supports the Nigerian government with service delivery by utilising primary health care facilities and social franchising networks comprising private and faith-based hospitals.6
“Decentralisation of care and taskshifting to non-specialists is one way in which the management of hepatitis could be rapidly improved in Nigeria.” Dr Ruth Bello
Furthermore, gaps in knowledge around infection prevention and control, and safe needle exchange among health professionals needs to be addressed across the country. At present, the majority of hepatitis expertise is concentrated within highly specialised health facilities (tertiary care).2 Dr Uzochukwu concurs, outlining that in 2016, there were approximately 108 hepatitis specialists in Nigeria, all of whom were practicing in the major cities. This shortage of experts and the resulting geographic barrier to access is problematic, as many general practitioners working in primary care are not well trained in how to diagnose HBV or HCV, which laboratory tests are required and which treatments to administer. There is also lack of awareness on modes of transmission among health workers, with a study finding that only 44% of health workers were aware that HBV could pass between mother and child.7 All healthcare workers should receive ongoing training and education on the routes of hepatitis transmission and diagnosis and treatment options.8
Awareness about the disease is also low because the Nigerian government has not placed enough focus on partnering with non-governmental organisations and donor agencies that concentrate solely on advocating for hepatitis elimination. Traditionally, the focus has been on treating diseases such as HIV and TB, which has left the hepatitis programme in the country underfunded.9 With undiagnosed hepatitis being such a critical problem in Nigeria, it is imperative that more initiatives and campaigns to raise awareness on viral hepatitis are launched.
Addressing funding issues surrounding hepatitis screening, diagnosis and treatment
Besides improving levels of knowledge on viral hepatitis in Nigeria, the gaps in funding for screening, diagnosis and treatment are probably the most critical issues to address.
Dr Uzochukwu says that with the help of civil society organisations, donors and advocates, free screening camps for HBV and HCV have been made available in some parts of the country. However, these are not geographically accessible by everyone who needs them, and the Nigerian Government is yet to fund the camps on a large-scale basis. Moreover, even though some free hepatitis screening programmes are available for pregnant women, there is no funding available to provide vaccinations and prevent infection in those mothers who test negative. In the same way, there are no affordable HBV vaccination schemes in place for at-risk populations including healthcare workers, people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men.2 Nevertheless, the national hepatitis clinical guidelines recommend that at-risk populations such as healthcare professionals and key workers be screened for hepatitis infection.4
Despite a significant push to implement universal health coverage in Nigeria, approximately 95% of the population is still not covered by the National Health Insurance Scheme.2, 8 In addition to this, the 2016 National Guidelines for the Prevention, Care and Treatment of Viral Hepatitis focus on the inclusion of viral hepatitis as part of the universal health coverage, however, this is yet to happen.4 Since the cost of vaccines, testing and treatment must be paid for privately, this significantly hampers uptake. Dr Danjuma Adda comments that with 55% of Nigerians living on less than 1 USD a day, hepatitis screening, diagnosis and treatment is beyond the reach of most citizens. He estimates that of the 19 million individuals predicted to be living with viral hepatitis, less than 5% can afford to be tested. This is not too surprising, given that a viral load test for hepatitis costs 20,000 Naira (53 USD) and the 12-week treatment course for curing a chronic HCV infection costs between approximately 200 to 300 USD.9 Moreover, Dr. Adda says that a significant amount of the rapid test kits being used in primary and secondary care are not prequalified by the World Health Organization, making them unreliable. The better-quality testing equipment such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and molecular platforms for viral load, are generally only available in tertiary care settings. To add to the problem, these are often in limited supply. According to Dr Adda and Dr Uzochukwu, the substantial accessibility issues force individuals to turn to herbalists for alternative treatments, which often worsens their condition.
Over the years, the Nigerian government along with Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology has been partnering with donor organisations to come up with ways to make hepatitis care more affordable and accessible in the country, but more financing is required.8
Nasarawa State takes matters into its own hands
As a whole, the country has been slow to fully implement its strategies, which has spurred responses at the State level to scale testing and treatment. Nasarawa is leading in these efforts and serves as a valuable case study. In 2015, the State government launched their initial viral hepatitis elimination program and in February 2020, announced its 5-year HCV elimination plan. The plan aims to screen over 2.4 million individuals and treat 124,000 by 2024, six years ahead of the WHO’s 2030 target.10
Dr Ruth Bello, who is a member of the Viral Hepatitis Technical Working Group in Nasarawa, says that the State government has improved hepatitis services by shifting tasks where possible. Task-shifting and strengthening of hospital and specialist health services across the state has stimulated increased awareness and demand for viral hepatitis services. Despite the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on the resilience of the Nigerian health system, the Nasarawa State government has proceeded to build the capacity of healthcare workers across 21 health facilities to improve hepatitis care. Through the commitment of a seed fund of 40 million Naira (110, 000 USD), Nasarawa has screened over 85,000 people and cured 1,300 of those who were found to be infected.9
Looking forward to 2030 and the need for more commitment
With 2030 coming up fast and considering the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on health systems around the globe, Nigeria will need to quickly gain momentum on its efforts towards elimination of viral hepatitis if it is to going to reach the WHO target. The country has what it takes to achieve this goal in terms of the plans, strategies and guidelines that it already has in place. However, further political and financial commitment by the Nigerian government is needed to implement these policies.
Looking ahead, the Ministry of Health should prioritise partnerships with donor organisations to fund the expansion of the National Health Insurance Scheme to cover all aspects of hepatitis care. National-level price negotiations for viral hepatitis testing and treatments could further support this expansion of access. Hepatitis awareness campaigns for the general public and healthcare professionals are also important to increase health literacy and improve health-seeking behaviour. Additionally, healthcare professionals require training to raise awareness of and knowledge about viral hepatitis. Central government could also seek to learn from best practice examples within the country to improve services.
While every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy of this information, The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd. cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this report or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in this report. The findings and views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.
[1] Nwokediuko S. Chronic Hepatitis B: Management Challenges in Resource-Poor Countries. Hepatitis Monthly [Internet]. 2011;11(10):786-793. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234575/
[2] The Journey to Hepatitis Elimination in Nigeria - Hepatitis B Foundation [Internet]. Hepatitis B Foundation. 2020 Available from: https://www.hepb.org/blog/journey-hepatitis-elimination-nigeria/
[3] World Hepatitis Day: Nigerians implored to be screened and vaccinated - Nigeria [Internet]. WHO. 2019 Available from: https://www.afro.who.int/news/world-hepatitis-day-nigerians-implored-be-screened-and-vaccinated?country=979&name=Nigeria
[4] Why Nigeria must find everyone who has hepatitis and doesn’t know it [Internet]. The Conversation. 2020. Available from: https://theconversation.com/why-nigeria-must-find-everyone-who-has-hepatitis-and-doesnt-know-it-143208
[5] Dying Unaware: Race to rescue “the missing millions” from hepatitis in Nigeria [Internet]. Nigeria Health Watch. 2019. Available from: https:// nigeriahealthwatch.medium.com/dying-unaware-race-to-rescue-the-missing-millions-from-hepatitis-in-nigeria-98b80b07b1be
[6] Health and Social Systems Strengthening. Society for Family Health, Nigeria. 2020. Available from: https://www.sfhnigeria.org/health-and-socialsystems-strengthening/
[7] Kolawole, Akande & Akere, Adegboyega & Osundina, Morenike. (2018). Knowledge of hepatitis B virus and vaccination uptake among hospital workers in south west, Nigeria.
[8] Enabulele O. Achieving Universal Health Coverage in Nigeria: Moving Beyond Annual Celebrations to Concrete Address of the Challenges. World Medical & Health Policy. 2020;12(1):47-59.
[9] Folorunsho-Francis A. At N20,000, hepatitis test is beyond most Nigerians -Investigation - Healthwise [Internet]. Healthwise. 2020. Available from: https://healthwise.punchng.com/at-n20000-hepatitis-test-is-beyond-most-nigerians-investigation/
[10] Nasarawa Budgets N40m To Combat Hepatitis. Hepatitis Voices. 2020 Available from: https://hepvoices.org/2020/02/nasarawa-budgets-n40m-tocombat-hepatitis/

Value-based healthcare in Sweden: Reaching the next level
The need to get better value from healthcare investment has never been more important as ageing populations and increasing numbers of people with multiple chronic conditions force governments to make limited financial resources go further.
These pressures, along with a greater focus on patient-centred care, have raised the profile of VBHC, especially in European healthcare systems. Sweden, with its highly comprehensive and egalitarian healthcare system, has been a leader in implementing VBHC from the beginning, a fact that was underscored in a 2016 global assessment of VBHC published by The Economist Intelligence Unit.
This paper looks at the ways in which Sweden has implemented VBHC, the areas in which it has faced obstacles and the lessons that it can teach other countries and health systems looking to improve the value of their own healthcare investments.

Breast cancer patients and survivors in the Asia-Pacific workforce
With more older women also working, how will the rising trend of breast cancer survivorship manifest in workplace policies, practices and culture? What challenges do breast cancer survivors face when trying to reintegrate into the workforce, or to continue working during treatment? How can governments, companies and society at large play a constructive role?
This series of reports looks at the situation for breast cancer survivors in Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. It finds that while progress has been made, more needs to be done, particularly in South Korea, where public stigma around cancer remains high.Osteoporosis: A challenge obscured, not eliminated
Covid-19 has rightly seized the attention of health system officials. Nevertheless, the disease has done nothing to change the underlying consideration which led the WHO – and, just as recently, also the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the G201 – to raise the policy profile of healthy ageing’s importance to economic growth and human well-being. More and more of us are living longer and longer. This is good news, but also presents challenges.
17543
Related content

Demystifying ageing: Lifting the burden of fragility fractures and osteopor...
Fragility fractures are already a significant public health challenge across Asia-Pacific. Their lasting impact on societies and economies is well-documented, leading to loss of mobility, independence and, in some instances, death for their elderly sufferers. In many traditional Asia-Pacific societies, where older people often serve as caregivers for younger generations, fractures can devastate entire families and communities. From a broader perspective, the cost of treating hip fractures to Asia-Pacific societies equates to 19% of GDP per capita, underscoring the enormity of the problem.
As populations age, many believe fragility fractures will become more widespread, yet this is not necessarily the case. Osteoporosis, a condition that makes bones more likely to break and a leading cause of fractures, was within living memory thought to be a natural part of ageing. This myth is gradually being dispelled. The condition is preventable and treatable—a fact which receives too little attention across the region. This study looks at the challenge fragility fractures and osteoporosis pose and how health systems are responding in eight Asia-Pacific economies: Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand (called collectively in the text the “scorecard economies”).
Download the report in English | 한국어 | 繁體中文 View the infographic in English | 한국어 | 繁體中文 Fight the Fracture, a public education campaign, aims to empower patients who have suffered a fragility fracture and their caregivers to proactively seek medical professional help in secondary care prevention ‒ the prevention of a subsequent fracture ‒ by providing them with educational information, tools and resources. Find out more about Fight the Fracture at: www.fightthefracture.asia
Ageing with strength: Addressing fragility fractures in Asia-Pacific
By 2050 Asia-Pacific will be home to 1.3bn people older than 60. This growth will happen at a time when lifespans are also becoming longer. As a result, the region is expected to see an increase in diseases associated with age. Among them is osteoporosis, a condition that makes bones less dense and more fragile and can cause fragility, or low-impact, fractures—those that occur (often to the hip, spine or wrist) when someone falls from a standing height or lower.
Osteoporosis is defined as having a bone mass density (BMD) 2.5 standard deviations below the average value of a young healthy woman. It is a disease that affects far more women than men, but the latter still account for about a fifth to a quarter of hip fragility fractures worldwide.
What are the key challenges for osteoporosis patients in the APAC region and how are these affecting their daily lives? Download our report for more insights.
NO TIME FOR SILENCE: Exploring policy approaches to investment in stroke prevention in Europe
No time for silence: exploring policy approaches to investment in stroke prevention in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK is an independent report written by The Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by The Bristol Myers Squibb–Pfizer Alliance. The report considers policy and investment efforts around best practices for preventing stroke including resources for education, awareness and detection. To better understand variations in European policy, the research has been conducted across five major countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.
Related content

Value-based healthcare in Sweden: Reaching the next level
The need to get better value from healthcare investment has never been more important as ageing populations and increasing numbers of people with multiple chronic conditions force governments to make limited financial resources go further.
These pressures, along with a greater focus on patient-centred care, have raised the profile of VBHC, especially in European healthcare systems. Sweden, with its highly comprehensive and egalitarian healthcare system, has been a leader in implementing VBHC from the beginning, a fact that was underscored in a 2016 global assessment of VBHC published by The Economist Intelligence Unit.
This paper looks at the ways in which Sweden has implemented VBHC, the areas in which it has faced obstacles and the lessons that it can teach other countries and health systems looking to improve the value of their own healthcare investments.

Breast cancer patients and survivors in the Asia-Pacific workforce
With more older women also working, how will the rising trend of breast cancer survivorship manifest in workplace policies, practices and culture? What challenges do breast cancer survivors face when trying to reintegrate into the workforce, or to continue working during treatment? How can governments, companies and society at large play a constructive role?
This series of reports looks at the situation for breast cancer survivors in Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. It finds that while progress has been made, more needs to be done, particularly in South Korea, where public stigma around cancer remains high.
The Cost of Silence
Cardiovascular diseases levy a substantial financial toll on individuals, their households and the public finances. These include the costs of hospital treatment, long-term disease management and recurring incidence of heart attacks and stroke. They also include the costs of functional impairment and knock-on costs as families may lose breadwinners or have to withdraw other family members from the workforce to care for a CVD patient. Governments also lose tax revenue due to early retirement and mortality, and can be forced to reallocate public finances from other budgets to maintain an accessible healthcare system in the face of rising costs.
As such, there is a need for more awareness of the ways in which people should actively work to reduce their CVD risk. There is also a need for more primary and secondary preventative support from health agencies, policymakers and nongovernmental groups.
To inform the decisions and strategies of these stakeholders, The Economist Intelligence Unit and EIU Healthcare, its healthcare subsidiary, have conducted a study of the prevalence and costs of the top four modifiable risk factors that contribute to CVDs across the Asian markets of China, Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.
Download the report to learn more.
Could Healthy China 2030 also be a blueprint for investment opportunity?
China’s healthcare sector began privatising in the 1990s, along with the founding of special economic zones based on a famously repeated pledge not to worry about if a cat was white or black so long as it caught mice. Since then, a mostly healthy path of economic growth has played out in China, attracting international capital. In an Economist Intelligence Unit survey from November 2019, institutional investors and asset owners showed a bullish stance on the country, with 84% saying they had increased
More from this series
17536
Related content

The China position: Gauging institutional investor confidence
The China position: Gauging institutional investor confidence is an Economist Intelligence Unit report, comissioned by Invesco. It analyses results from a survey of 411 institutional investor and asset owner organisations (approximately 200 in Europe, Middle East and Africa, 100 in North America, and 100 from Asia-Pacific). The key findings of the survey are as follow:
A majority (nine in ten) of our survey respondents claim some level of dedicated exposure to China. Investments are growing; about half of respondents with dedicated China exposure report their investments have “risen significantly” in the past 12 months. Equities are the most-cited way organisations invest in China. Over 60% of respondents with dedicated China exposure report both equities and fixed income onshore holdings. Respondents cited improvements to their own China expertise as the top driver for dedicated investment exposure. Nearly four in ten respondents say environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors play a role in all of their investment decisions; fewer than three in ten say ESG is particularly important for China investments. Chinese asset classes in our survey could see increased investment from foreign organisations over the next 12 months, with respondents highlighting technology, financial services and “new economy” sectors as most attractive. Risk assessments are largely even across asset classes, but on a regional split respondents in APAC are more concerned than counterparts in North America or EMEA. Respondents are mixed on the impact of US-China trade tensions, with similar numbers expecting a positive or negative effect. But a majority of respondents report that their organisations expect to increase exposure over the next 12 months, regardless of outlook. About three-quarters of survey respondents say China’s economy will improve over the next 12 months; about two-thirds say the same for global economic conditions.Our thanks are due to the following individuals for their time and insights:
Jimmy Chang, chief investment strategist, Rockefeller Capital Management Mark Delaney, deputy chief executive and chief investment officer, Australian Super Kevin Wade, chief investment officer, Superannuation Arrangements of the University of London (SAUL)Download the report for more insights.

Infographic: The China position
China has now emerged as the world’s largest economy by purchasing power parity and is a market that investors cannot ignore. To learn more about the confidence level of institutional investor and asset owner organisations in China and the opportunities and concerns over the next 12 months, click here to download the full report.

The shifting landscape of global wealth: Future-proofing prosperity in a ti...
In some instances the impact of this shift will be shaped by local factors, such as demographic changes. In other instances this shift will reflect shared characteristics, as demonstrated by the greater popularity of overseas investing among younger high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) brought up in an era of globalisation. Whatever the drivers, the landscape of wealth is changing—from local to global, and from one focused on returns to one founded on personal values.
Despite rising economic concerns and a tradition of investor home bias in large parts of the world, the new landscape of wealth appears less interested in borders. According to a survey commissioned by RBC Wealth Management and conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), younger HNWIs are substantially more enthusiastic about foreign investing. The U.S. is a particularly high-profile example of a country where a long-standing preference for investments in local markets appears set to be transformed.
Click the thumbnail below to download the global executive summary.
Read additional articles from The EIU with detail on the shifting landscape of global wealth in Asia, Canada, the U.S. and UK on RBC's website.
Navigating the Next Frontier of Precision Medicine Oncology
The covid-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities and inequities of the global healthcare system, but it could also catalyze overdue transformative change.
17527
Related content

Value-based healthcare in Sweden: Reaching the next level
The need to get better value from healthcare investment has never been more important as ageing populations and increasing numbers of people with multiple chronic conditions force governments to make limited financial resources go further.
These pressures, along with a greater focus on patient-centred care, have raised the profile of VBHC, especially in European healthcare systems. Sweden, with its highly comprehensive and egalitarian healthcare system, has been a leader in implementing VBHC from the beginning, a fact that was underscored in a 2016 global assessment of VBHC published by The Economist Intelligence Unit.
This paper looks at the ways in which Sweden has implemented VBHC, the areas in which it has faced obstacles and the lessons that it can teach other countries and health systems looking to improve the value of their own healthcare investments.

Breast cancer patients and survivors in the Asia-Pacific workforce
With more older women also working, how will the rising trend of breast cancer survivorship manifest in workplace policies, practices and culture? What challenges do breast cancer survivors face when trying to reintegrate into the workforce, or to continue working during treatment? How can governments, companies and society at large play a constructive role?
This series of reports looks at the situation for breast cancer survivors in Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. It finds that while progress has been made, more needs to be done, particularly in South Korea, where public stigma around cancer remains high.
The Cost of Silence
Cardiovascular diseases levy a substantial financial toll on individuals, their households and the public finances. These include the costs of hospital treatment, long-term disease management and recurring incidence of heart attacks and stroke. They also include the costs of functional impairment and knock-on costs as families may lose breadwinners or have to withdraw other family members from the workforce to care for a CVD patient. Governments also lose tax revenue due to early retirement and mortality, and can be forced to reallocate public finances from other budgets to maintain an accessible healthcare system in the face of rising costs.
As such, there is a need for more awareness of the ways in which people should actively work to reduce their CVD risk. There is also a need for more primary and secondary preventative support from health agencies, policymakers and nongovernmental groups.
To inform the decisions and strategies of these stakeholders, The Economist Intelligence Unit and EIU Healthcare, its healthcare subsidiary, have conducted a study of the prevalence and costs of the top four modifiable risk factors that contribute to CVDs across the Asian markets of China, Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.
Download the report to learn more.
Related content

持続可能な医療の実現に向け: 新たな構造改革のビジョン
過去60年、日本は比較的小規模な制度改革により、優れた医療サービスを提供している。国民皆保険制度を通じ、手ごろな価格で最先端の医療サービスを受けられる、つまり高いレベルのユニバーサル・ヘルス・カバレッジ(UHC)を実現してきた。
日本の医療制度の適用範囲が非常に広いために、政策立案者らによる痛みを伴う改革の先延ばしを招いた面もある。先進医療の高額化が進む現在、需給バランス調整メカニズムの欠如、人口の高齢化がもたらす負荷、医療経済性の検討といった大きな課題が浮上している。こうした現状は医療制度、ひいては社会・経済全体の持続可能性に大きな影響を及ぼす可能性が高い。
日本が医療保険制度におけるインセンティブ強化を今進めなければ、先進イノベーションの活用や質の高いUHCの維持が困難になる恐れがある。ザ・エコノミスト・インテリジェンス・ユニット(EIU)が今回作成したスコアカードの結果も、抜本的改革の必要性を示唆している。
日本の医療には、治療費が高額で医療格差の目立つ米国と比較すれば優れた面が多い。しかし制度的な持続可能性を左右する5つの要因のうち4つで英国・フランスに大きな差をつけられており、韓国にも後れを取っているのが現状だ。
特に包括医療・研究開発制度の領域では取り組みの遅れが目立ち、適切な人員体制や説明責任のレベル、患者中心の医療の推進といった面でも改善の余地は大きい。ただし、長期ケア体制の確立については高い評価を獲得している。今回の調査で明らかとなった主要な論点は次ページの通り。
主要な論点:
医療財政の持続可能性は急速に低下しつつある 現行の診療報酬制度は抜本的構造改革の足かせとなっている 医療資源の効率的活用に向けたインセンティブの見直しが求められている 日本の長期ケア制度は世界的にも優れているが、プライマリケアとの連携強化は大きな課題 日本の研究開発体制は他の先進国に後れを取っている
Health system sustainability in Japan: Priorities for structural reform
Japan’s healthcare system has kept the country remarkably healthy with relatively minor changes for nearly six decades. The system provides universal care, generous coverage and the most innovative treatments at a cost that is accessible to all.
Yet the very scope of coverage in the Japanese system obscures the extent to which policymakers have put off making necessary but difficult choices. In particular, the lack of regulation of demand for health services, the pressures of an ageing population and the underdeveloped system for evaluating efficiency and effectiveness of medical products and services could paralyse Japan’s healthcare system as the cost of state-of-the-art medical treatments increase. The economic consequences of this would inevitably reverberate beyond the health system itself.
Without changes in the incentives built into the current system, Japan will struggle to take advantage of medical innovation and to maintain its ability to deliver high-quality, accessible care in the future. As our Health system sustainability in Japan scorecard shows, there are signs that significant fixes to the system may be necessary. Although Japan compares well in many respects to the more expensive and fragmented system in the US, it lags significantly behind the UK and France, and slightly behind neighbouring South Korea, in four of the five principal scoring domains.
Japan’s health system compares especially unfavourably with regard to progress in integrated healthcare and research preparedness, but it also has ground to make up in adequate workforce staffing and in the accountability and patient-centredness of the system. At the same time, it scores well in the provision of a long-term care network. We highlight the report’s key findings below.
Key findings:
Japan’s health financing system is becoming increasingly unsustainable. The country’s existing price review process acts as a brake on structural health system reform. Different incentives are needed to efficiently use medical workforce and hospital resources. Japan’s long-term care system can be a model for other countries but needs better integration with primary care. Japan lags behind developed country peers in the area of research.Download the report to find out more.
日本のイノベーティブな ライフサイエンス・エコシステムを支えるために
ライフサイエンス・セクターの医療イノベーションには 、 基礎科学・研 究開発(R&D)・実用化など 、 あらゆる領域を対象とした包括的政策や市 場アクセスが不可欠だ。日本は過去数十年にわたり 、 アジアの主要イノ ベーション国として存在感を示してきた。しかしライフサイエンスにお けるイノベーションでは北米と欧州が依然として大きな影響力を保って いる。また近年 、 韓国や中国がインフラ・人材・R&D への投資を加速さ せ 、 新たな政策を打ち出すことでライフサイエンス領域のエコシステム 強化を推進している。競争力強化に向けた抜本的な方策が日本に求めら れているのはそのためだ。
ザ・エコノミスト・インテリジェンス・ユニット(EIU)が作成した本 報告書では 、 日本のライフサイエンス・セクターの現状を米国・韓国・ 中国と比較分析し 、 イノベーション推進体制のさらなる強化に向けた 方策について検証する。
日本はライフサイエンスの分野で高度なイノベーション力を維持して いるが 、 先行する米国には追い付けていない。またアジアでは韓国・ 中国といった競合国の追い上げに直面しており 、 イノベーション大国と しての地位は必ずしも盤石でない。
Related content

Health system sustainability in Japan: Priorities for structural reform
Japan’s healthcare system has kept the country remarkably healthy with relatively minor changes for nearly six decades. The system provides universal care, generous coverage and the most innovative treatments at a cost that is accessible to all.
Yet the very scope of coverage in the Japanese system obscures the extent to which policymakers have put off making necessary but difficult choices. In particular, the lack of regulation of demand for health services, the pressures of an ageing population and the underdeveloped system for evaluating efficiency and effectiveness of medical products and services could paralyse Japan’s healthcare system as the cost of state-of-the-art medical treatments increase. The economic consequences of this would inevitably reverberate beyond the health system itself.
Without changes in the incentives built into the current system, Japan will struggle to take advantage of medical innovation and to maintain its ability to deliver high-quality, accessible care in the future. As our Health system sustainability in Japan scorecard shows, there are signs that significant fixes to the system may be necessary. Although Japan compares well in many respects to the more expensive and fragmented system in the US, it lags significantly behind the UK and France, and slightly behind neighbouring South Korea, in four of the five principal scoring domains.
Japan’s health system compares especially unfavourably with regard to progress in integrated healthcare and research preparedness, but it also has ground to make up in adequate workforce staffing and in the accountability and patient-centredness of the system. At the same time, it scores well in the provision of a long-term care network. We highlight the report’s key findings below.
Key findings:
Japan’s health financing system is becoming increasingly unsustainable. The country’s existing price review process acts as a brake on structural health system reform. Different incentives are needed to efficiently use medical workforce and hospital resources. Japan’s long-term care system can be a model for other countries but needs better integration with primary care. Japan lags behind developed country peers in the area of research.Download the report to find out more.
Supporting an innovative life sciences ecosystem in Japan
Medical innovation in the life sciences requires a holistic policy and market access environment that supports everything from basic science to product research and development (R&D) and, ultimately, commercialization. Though North America and Europe have historically led innovation in life sciences, Japan has been a leading contributor from Asia for decades.
Related content

Health system sustainability in Japan: Priorities for structural reform
Japan’s healthcare system has kept the country remarkably healthy with relatively minor changes for nearly six decades. The system provides universal care, generous coverage and the most innovative treatments at a cost that is accessible to all.
Yet the very scope of coverage in the Japanese system obscures the extent to which policymakers have put off making necessary but difficult choices. In particular, the lack of regulation of demand for health services, the pressures of an ageing population and the underdeveloped system for evaluating efficiency and effectiveness of medical products and services could paralyse Japan’s healthcare system as the cost of state-of-the-art medical treatments increase. The economic consequences of this would inevitably reverberate beyond the health system itself.
Without changes in the incentives built into the current system, Japan will struggle to take advantage of medical innovation and to maintain its ability to deliver high-quality, accessible care in the future. As our Health system sustainability in Japan scorecard shows, there are signs that significant fixes to the system may be necessary. Although Japan compares well in many respects to the more expensive and fragmented system in the US, it lags significantly behind the UK and France, and slightly behind neighbouring South Korea, in four of the five principal scoring domains.
Japan’s health system compares especially unfavourably with regard to progress in integrated healthcare and research preparedness, but it also has ground to make up in adequate workforce staffing and in the accountability and patient-centredness of the system. At the same time, it scores well in the provision of a long-term care network. We highlight the report’s key findings below.
Key findings:
Japan’s health financing system is becoming increasingly unsustainable. The country’s existing price review process acts as a brake on structural health system reform. Different incentives are needed to efficiently use medical workforce and hospital resources. Japan’s long-term care system can be a model for other countries but needs better integration with primary care. Japan lags behind developed country peers in the area of research.Download the report to find out more.
Related content

Health system sustainability in Japan: Priorities for structural reform
Japan’s healthcare system has kept the country remarkably healthy with relatively minor changes for nearly six decades. The system provides universal care, generous coverage and the most innovative treatments at a cost that is accessible to all.
Yet the very scope of coverage in the Japanese system obscures the extent to which policymakers have put off making necessary but difficult choices. In particular, the lack of regulation of demand for health services, the pressures of an ageing population and the underdeveloped system for evaluating efficiency and effectiveness of medical products and services could paralyse Japan’s healthcare system as the cost of state-of-the-art medical treatments increase. The economic consequences of this would inevitably reverberate beyond the health system itself.
Without changes in the incentives built into the current system, Japan will struggle to take advantage of medical innovation and to maintain its ability to deliver high-quality, accessible care in the future. As our Health system sustainability in Japan scorecard shows, there are signs that significant fixes to the system may be necessary. Although Japan compares well in many respects to the more expensive and fragmented system in the US, it lags significantly behind the UK and France, and slightly behind neighbouring South Korea, in four of the five principal scoring domains.
Japan’s health system compares especially unfavourably with regard to progress in integrated healthcare and research preparedness, but it also has ground to make up in adequate workforce staffing and in the accountability and patient-centredness of the system. At the same time, it scores well in the provision of a long-term care network. We highlight the report’s key findings below.
Key findings:
Japan’s health financing system is becoming increasingly unsustainable. The country’s existing price review process acts as a brake on structural health system reform. Different incentives are needed to efficiently use medical workforce and hospital resources. Japan’s long-term care system can be a model for other countries but needs better integration with primary care. Japan lags behind developed country peers in the area of research.Download the report to find out more.
Related content

日本のイノベーティブな ライフサイエンス・エコシステムを支えるために
ライフサイエンス・セクターの医療イノベーションには 、 基礎科学・研 究開発(R&D)・実用化など 、 あらゆる領域を対象とした包括的政策や市 場アクセスが不可欠だ。日本は過去数十年にわたり 、 アジアの主要イノ ベーション国として存在感を示してきた。しかしライフサイエンスにお けるイノベーションでは北米と欧州が依然として大きな影響力を保って いる。また近年 、 韓国や中国がインフラ・人材・R&D への投資を加速さ せ 、 新たな政策を打ち出すことでライフサイエンス領域のエコシステム 強化を推進している。競争力強化に向けた抜本的な方策が日本に求めら れているのはそのためだ。
ザ・エコノミスト・インテリジェンス・ユニット(EIU)が作成した本 報告書では 、 日本のライフサイエンス・セクターの現状を米国・韓国・ 中国と比較分析し 、 イノベーション推進体制のさらなる強化に向けた 方策について検証する。
日本はライフサイエンスの分野で高度なイノベーション力を維持して いるが 、 先行する米国には追い付けていない。またアジアでは韓国・ 中国といった競合国の追い上げに直面しており 、 イノベーション大国と しての地位は必ずしも盤石でない。
今回 EIU が行った調査では 、 日本がこれまでの実績を活かしながら ライフサイエンス・セクターのイノベーション・エコシステムを強化し 、 世界的競争力を維持するために求められる方策が明らかとなっている。特に下記の取り組みは重要だ:
高度な研究人材の維持・拡充 研究開発投資の加速と企業向けインセンティブの強化 強固な知的財産保護制度の維持と 、 実施体制・透明性の向上 技術移転・実用化の支援強化 医療財政の健全化と新薬創出の両立