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.
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.
From the report Health Systems Swimming Naked? How the covid-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in paediatric immunisation programmes in emerging economies
The world must devise a globally fair covid-19 vaccine allocation system
Vaccination is our best hope for stopping the coronavirus pandemic in its tracks. But producing safe, effective and globally accessible vaccines within the next 12 to 18 months is not only a scientific challenge: new levels of collaboration and investment across industry and government will be essential.
This pandemic is the biggest public health threat that humankind has faced in a century. It is wreaking havoc on societies and economies and it is an acid test for public-private partnerships. We need to move fast to unleash the funding required to develop vaccines.
Delivering covid-19 vaccines for the world—at record speed—will take a collective effort. We must combine the resources and expertise of academia and the private sector with the ability only governments have to mobilise the political will and amass the large sums of money that will be required.
No therapies to prevent or treat covid-19 are available, but research is advancing at a breakneck pace. The private and public sectors must now collaborate to ensure the best and fairest use of new products—wherever they come from—when they arrive.
In the case of vaccines, this means pursuing multiple approaches across both established and new technologies rather than trying to pick one or two “winners” prematurely since many candidate vaccines will inevitably fall by the wayside.
Given the threat posed by covid-19 we must regard vaccines as a global good: a shared resource that is deployed for the good of all irrespective of a country’s ability to pay. Given the global threat posed by covid-19 and the universal, simultaneous need for a vaccine, the world must devise a globally fair allocation system to ensure that healthcare workers and the most vulnerable segments of the world’s population get priority access.
Today, exceptional science is being done around the world. Researchers have been working around the clock to produce vaccine candidates ever since the genome of the new virus was sequenced in January 2020. The good news is this has yielded a flood of more than 90 promising candidates. Now this effort must be buttressed by large-scale public-sector assistance to optimise clinical trial procedures and scale-up manufacturing capacity—something that involves risky upfront investments before any product is approved.
The Oslo-based Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) provides a platform to deliver just this kind of private-public co-operation. The coalition was initially set up in 2017 after West Africa’s deadly Ebola epidemic to accelerate work on vaccines against emerging infectious diseases.
CEPI—a partnership of governments, industry and philanthropies—has a clear roadmap to accelerate covid-19 vaccine development at an estimated cost of US$2bn over the next 12-18 months. Financial support from the UK, Germany, Norway, Denmark and Finland has brought in around US$660m. Closing the remaining financing gap is imperative if we are to stay on track.
Vaccine development is complex and expensive. Rates of attrition are high. We need multiple candidates to ensure that we can produce safe and effective vaccines. My organisation estimates that a large part of the US$2bn will be needed by the middle of this year to develop eight vaccine candidates through initial phase 1 testing, prepare for phase 2/3 trials and to invest in manufacturing processes for up to six candidates.
Assuming one or more of these candidates succeeds, there will then be a huge global demand requiring unparalleled efforts to harness manufacturing capacity and distribution networks.
Last month, G20 leaders pledged to support the global effort against covid-19, including contributing to this vital vaccine work. The message could not be clearer: now is the time for governments and industry to join forces to fight back against this deadly disease.
The promise of equitable access to vaccines is at risk
In his opening speech at the 148th session of the Executive Board on 18 January, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reminded the audience that inequitable access has been the norm over the last four decades. To illustrate his point, he pointed to examples of the delays in providing HIV treatments and, more recently, the H1N1 vaccines. It took ten years for HIV medicines to reach poor countries, and by the time swine flu vaccines were deployed to the poorest global citizens in 2009, the pandemic was over. According to Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus the present situation does not seem very promising—over 39 million COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered in “at least 49 higher-income countries” compared with just 25 doses in a single low-income country.
There are logistical challenges for the vaccines’ distribution in many parts of the world, but these are not the only obstacles. With more than 50 signed bilateral agreements between countries and manufacturers it seems that the 2 billion doses for low- and middle-income countries that were secured as part of the Gavi COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC) mechanism are not a priority for delivery.
The WHO has called for a global priority list of vulnerable patients, the elderly and health workers, before vaccination is rolled out for other groups in individual countries. But is such altruism possible? Is it reasonable, or politically feasible, for countries to give priority to COVAX doses, before vaccinating their whole populations? It’s a question that high-income governments, and their treasuries, need to consider, as a recent RAND report estimated that unequal allocation of vaccines could cost the global economy up to US$1.2 trillion a year in GDP.
For more information see our COVID-19 Health Funding Tracker.
For all our blog posts, see our COVID-19 Health Funding Tracker News Feed.
In this episode, senior editor Jason Wincuinas speaks to Global Forecasting Director of The Economist Intelligence Unit, Agathe Demarais, about recently published report on China and Russia’s vaccine diplomacy efforts across Asia.
Read the vaccine diplomacy article or download report.
Subscribe on Apple podcasts | Spotify | Google podcasts | Your preferred podcasting platforms
When a highly disruptive event like the pandemic occurs, it places substantial stress on many of these programmes simultaneously, just as an economic downturn does on every company at once. The results for both finance and public health are revealing. To quote Warren Buffett, “only when the tide goes out, do you discover who’s been swimming naked”.
Related content
17756
Health
Are social media to blame for a decline in vaccine uptake?
Twenty years ago, three-quarters of media reports on the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine were negative; journalists gave endless column inches to the latest anti-MMR theory without checking the scientific virtues of the claims being made. Those supporting the MMR vaccine were confronted on television by parents who were convinced that their children’s problems were vaccine induced, even when it was clear that they were not. Much changed when Brian Deer reported in The Sunday Times and on his website about his investigation into the research by Andrew Wakefield, who claimed that the MMR vaccine was linked to autism and bowel disease. When Dr Wakefield was struck off the UK’s Medical Register for serious professional misconduct, where he was described as ”dishonest, irresponsible and showed callous disregard”, many journalists appreciated that they had contributed to creating harm. Since then, the notion that reporting balance always requires equal coverage, whatever the virtues of either side, has been appreciated to be inappropriate.
Today, anti-vaccine coverage in mainstream media is rare in the UK, and the reporting flavour is strongly pro-vaccine. Yet over recent years uptake for all childhood vaccines in England (and certainly in some other parts of the world) has been slipping. The role of social media has been blamed frequently, with Matt Hancock, who is the secretary of state for health in England, wanting new legislation to force social media companies to remove content promoting false information about vaccines. Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England, reporting on school-gate gossip, has also blamed social media.
Other voices have instead called for compulsory vaccination despite its failure when it was tried before in the UK. There is also a lack of evidence that coverage is higher in countries with compulsion. One recent commentator suggested that non-compliant parents should be fined. These initiatives would make doctors, practice nurses and health visitors into the agents of the police and judiciary, who clearly have more important things to do than clog up the courts while making martyrs of those who sought publicity for their anti-vaccine choices. Fining non-compliers would discriminate between those who could afford their choice and those who for whatever other reason had not vaccinated their children. And who is going to be tasked with this bureaucracy?
Social media are not entirely innocent in this regard, and it is all too easy to find anti-vaccine material on websites and other platforms. In Ireland, an aggressive anti-human-papillomavirus vaccine campaign on social media did much harm despite the now widespread evidence of the vaccine’s safety and ability to prevent cancer. Parents who chose to deny their daughters protection against cancer because of the influence of social media will carry a heavy responsibility for the consequences of their ill-informed choices. But before we act in haste, we should ask whether there is evidence that the decline in vaccine coverage in England that affects all vaccines is caused by social media or whether there might be other factors at play.
At the time of the worst of the MMR frenzy in the early 2000s, 40% of parents said that they weighed up the pros and cons of vaccination, while the remainder automatically vaccinated their children when the vaccines were due. In 2017, 10% weighed up the pros and cons (now only 7%, according to Public Health England (PHE) data) and the rest automatically vaccinate. This doesn’t point to much negative impact from social media.
As parents do appear to be strongly supportive of childhood vaccination, there may be other reasons why fewer children are being vaccinated or not being recorded as having been vaccinated.
In 2012, health secretary Andrew Lansley’s health reforms enacted in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 changed the way that the immunisation programme was implemented and managed in England. Immunisation Coordinators, responsible for the programme at the local level, were mostly dislocated from the public health environments in which they had worked highly effectively. At the same time, the long-established coterminous geographical boundaries of public health and general practitioner services were redrawn such that earlier data on vaccine coverage no longer applied to the children in the newly mapped localities, and PHE needed to negotiate any initiatives through NHS England that had little immunisation expertise or capacity.
A 2016 review of the impacts of the Lansley reforms on immunisation said that the changes brought in fragmentation, ambiguity about organisational responsibilities and hindered data-sharing. While making immunisation managers responsible for larger areas supported equitable resource distribution and strengthened service commissioning, it also reduced their ability to apply clinical expertise, and support and evaluate immunisation providers’ performance.
So, what can be done?
Scaring parents over threats of diseases that they do not see as threats can be counterproductive. Choosing to vaccinate should be a normal behaviour. Clear information on the benefits as well as the very few adverse events that can occur must be widely available. In a way, the less attention we draw to unhelpful material on social media, the better, as long as there is a voice for the positive aspects. And a review of the management of immunisation and the NHS in England wouldn’t go amiss, as the 2012 reforms may have done more harm to the immunisation programme than vaccine hesitancy.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.
Designing a vaccine against covid-19: Cautious optimism and lessons from HI...
In 1984, Margaret Heckler, then US secretary of Health and Human Services, announced that Dr Robert Gallo and his team had identified the HIV virus, and told reporters, “We hope to have […] a vaccine ready for testing in approximately two years.” Billions of dollars of research investment later, and a string of failed clinical trials, there is still no approved HIV vaccine today. In December 30, 2019, when the Chinese government announced a mysterious outbreak of respiratory disease, it was within two weeks that the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing covid-19) was published. Eight months and 600,000 deaths later we are racing against a six to 18-month deadline to develop a safe and effective vaccine. Already, vaccines from Oxford University, UK (with AstraZeneca), China’s Sinovac and Sinopharm, and US biotech Moderna are in the final stage of testing, Phase III, were efficacy against infection and safety are proven—with others from Inovio, CanSino, Pfizer/BioNTech poised to start Phase III. The cautious optimism around the development of a covid-19 vaccine is not simply the triumph of hope over experience, but is based in differences between the viruses and the effectiveness of the human body’s defensive immune response against HIV and SARS-CoV-2.
The vast majority of the 12,000,000 people infected with covid-19 have had mild or asymptomatic infection (80%), 15% were hospitalized, around 2-3% died. The remainder have protective immune responses that control and eliminate infection, and—we think—protect against re-infection. ‘Immunity’ against re-infection is now supported by three studies in monkeys. Like hepatitis A, measles, and polio, covid-19 is defeated by infection-induced antibodies and killer cells, and these responses protect against re-infection. While we do not fully understand covid-19 immunity, early observations provide hope that a vaccine may be practicable.
By comparison, HIV is tricky. It has an astronomical rate of mutation. Critical parts of the virus are deeply hidden from infection-fighting proteins (antibodies), are covered by large fronds of sugar molecules, and contain “decoys” that misdirect the body’s defensive responses. HIV literally becomes a part of us, inserting copies of itself throughout the body. HIV infects and destroys particular immune cells—specifically helper T cells—that facilitate immune responses. The immune response against HIV, hobbled by the loss of helper T cells, struggles vainly to catch up with HIV mutations, progressing inexorably without treatment to AIDS and death. Furthermore, despite these responses an HIV-infected person can become “super”-infected by a second HIV strain. The immune responses against HIV cannot control, eliminate, or protect. The science of an HIV vaccine has proven daunting, but progress against these challenges may make covid-19 vaccine development easier.
Vaccines work by mimicking infection. By making the defensive immune system think that infection has occurred, vaccines induce a protective response comprising infection-fighting antibodies, helper cells, and killer cells without actual disease. Classically, it is easiest to make vaccines when individuals can make effective, protective immune responses to infection on their own. Many scientists believe this applies to covid-19, hence cautious optimism that a vaccine will be found safe and efficacious.
In addition, there are economic, societal and behavioral differences between the paths to vaccine discovery for HIV-1 and covid-19. The list of companies working on covid-19 vaccines includes vaccine “blue bloods” like GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, big drug companies like AstraZeneca and a host of hot biotechs. The number of big vaccine companies working on HIV vaccines is only one. At issue is balancing risk and incentive. The five to 10-year timeframe for vaccine development costs an estimated US$500m to US$1.5bn. The failure rate from lab to license is 93%. Imagine if a covid-19 vaccine only had a market in low- or middle-income countries—would any major company be involved? Covid-19 falls into the paradigm of a mixed high-income and low-income market; HIV does not. As further incentive, Operation Warp Speed and The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) are underwriting the cost of vaccine development (currently at around US$5bn)—de-risking development for the sake of speed.
The full impact of covid-19 in low- and middle-income countries remains unquantified. Lacking the resources to fund vaccine development, guarantee vaccine purchase (like US and several EU countries) or manufacture vaccines locally, the vaccine access challenge facing the global south is magnified by a dearth of mitigating options—constrained by poverty, under-resourced health sectors, and a lack of data on disease burden. CEPI, with its ~US$1.4 billion program, has specific clauses for global access and affordability in funding agreements. Just how affordable remains unknown. CEPI, WHO and Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance) have formed a consortium COVAX that hopes to accelerate vaccine development and to ensure that participating countries will have early access to 20% of their covid-19 vaccine needs. More than 150 countries, including some G7 countries, have signaled their intent to participate and fund. No similar urgency or alignment exists around an HIV-1 vaccine.
Finally, society has come to view science differently. Many of us recall artist Keith Haring’s “ignorance = fear” and “silence = death” poster, challenging science for answers to AIDS and challenging society to put aside its prejudices. We see a different dynamic of anti-science and denial, where ignorance is fearlessness and obstreperousness is death. In some countries, the politics of divisiveness at best ignore and at worst stigmatize compliance with good public health practice.
There is optimism that a safe and effective covid-19 vaccine will bridge societies to something like “old” normal, perhaps even in 12 to 18-months. For HIV-1, it has been 36 years without a vaccine. With possibilities opened up by covid-19 vaccine development, what will it take to bridge to a future free of HIV?
On 5 August 2020, Dr Kim joined an Economist Events webinar to discuss the developing of vaccines against covid-19, click to watch on-demand
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Group or any of its affiliates. The Economist Group cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.
In this episode, senior editor Jason Wincuinas speaks to Global Forecasting Director of The Economist Intelligence Unit, Agathe Demarais, about recently published report on China and Russia’s vaccine diplomacy efforts across Asia.
Read the vaccine diplomacy article or download report.
Subscribe on Apple podcasts | Spotify | Google podcasts | Your preferred podcasting platforms
New funding is urgently needed for testing, treatments, and healthcare workers protection in lower income countries
Related content
Health
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.
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.
Climate change is a health issue with particular effects on respiratory health. This research summarises the direct and indirect evidence that links climate change to lung health and maps out policy priorities to prevent and curb the effects of climate change on lung health.
Related content
17743
Health
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.
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.
There are few global health concerns more pressing than obesity. Because of the associated comorbidities and broad economic impact of an obese population, this issue demands our immediate attention. The covid-19 pandemic has further highlighted this issue: Obesity was identified as a risk factor for infection, and in some places has been considered a pre-existing condition when determining vaccine access. Exacerbating the crisis is the alarming rise in obesity among children and adolescents.
Related content
17741
Health
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.
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.
World Lung Cancer Day reminds us that lung cancer must be at the top of Europe's agenda every day.
Related content
Health
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.
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.
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.
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.
The burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes has been growing in South Africa since the 1990s. Twenty years ago that rise was obscured by burgeoning morbidity and mortality from HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB), but these are now falling due to the health system’s focus on tackling them and the roll-out of antiretroviral therapy. There now needs to be a similar focus from government and the health system on NCDs, with a shift within the country from an acute care model to a chronic care model that is better suited to managing their growing burden.
17737
Related content
Health
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.
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.
Covid-19 has accelerated the implementation of digital technologies across healthcare systems. Here we look at a few recently completed EIU projects that focus on how digital technologies have been used to mitigate the challenges created by the pandemic but also have great potential to address current and future healthcare challenges.
Related content
Health
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.
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.
Enjoy in-depth insights and expert analysis - subscribe to our Perspectives newsletter, delivered every week
Newsletter Signup
The Economist Group is a global organisation and operates a strict privacy policy around the world. Please see our privacy policy here
Join our Opinion Leaders Panel
Complete the form to join our panel and receive rewards every time you complete our business surveys. You will also receive the weekly newsletter, containing the latest cutting edge reports, blogs and industry data.
The Economist Intelligence Unit is part of the Economist Group. The Economist Group is a global organisation and operates a strict privacy policy around the world. To read more about us and our privacy policy please go to http://www.economistgroup.com/privacy
