Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundFrequent emergency department (ED) users account for a disproportionately high number of ED visits. Studies on case management (CM) interventions to reduce frequent ED use have shown mixed results, and few studies have been conducted within a universal health coverage system.ObjectiveTo determine whether a CM intervention—compared to standard emergency care—reduces ED attendance.DesignRandomized controlled trial.ParticipantsTwo hundred fifty frequent ED users (5 or more visits in the prior 12 months) who visited a public urban ED at the Lausanne University Hospital between May 2012 and July 2013 were allocated to either an intervention (n = 125) or control (n = 125) group, and monitored for 12 months.InterventionsAn individualized CM intervention consisting of concrete assistance in obtaining income entitlements, referral to primary or specialty medical care, access to mental health care or substance abuse treatment, and counseling on at-risk behaviors and health care utilization (in addition to standard care) at baseline and 1, 3, and 5 months.Main MeasuresWe used a generalized linear model for count data (negative binomial distribution) to compare the number of ED visits during the 12-month follow-up between CM and usual care, from an intention-to-treat perspective.Key ResultsAt 12 months, there were 2.71 (±0.23) ED visits in the intervention group versus 3.35 (±0.32) visits among controls (ratio = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.63; 1.02). In the multivariate model, the effect of the CM intervention on the number of ED visits approached statistical significance (b = −0.219, p = 0.075). The presence of poor social determinants of health was a significant predictor of ED use in the multivariate model (b = 0.280, p = 0.048).ConclusionsCM may reduce ED use by frequent users through an improved orientation to the health care system. Poor social determinants of health significantly increase use of the ED by frequent users.

This study aimed to determine the infection risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with diabetes (according to treatment method). Claimed subjects to the Korean National Health Insurance claims database diagnosed with COVID-19 were included. Ten thousand sixty-nine patients with COVID-19 between January 28 and April 5, 2020, were included. Stratified random sampling of 1:5 was used to select the control group of COVID-19 patients. In total 50,587 subjects were selected as the control group. After deleting the missing values, 60,656 subjects were included. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) indicated that diabetic insulin users had a higher risk of COVID-19 than subjects without diabetes (OR, 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.53; P=0.0278). In the subgroup analysis, infection risk was higher among diabetes male insulin users (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.89), those between 40 and 59 years (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.44). The infection risk was higher in diabetic insulin users with 2 to 4 years of morbidity (OR, 1.744; 95% CI, 1.003 to 3.044). Some diabetic patients with certain conditions would be associated with a higher risk of acquiring COVID-19, highlighting their need for special attention. Efforts are warranted to ensure that diabetic patients have minimal exposure to the virus. It is important to establish proactive care and screening tests for diabetic patients suspected with COVID-19 for timely disease diagnosis and management.

Qingyue Meng and colleagues assess what China’s health system reform has achieved and what needs to be done over the next decade

Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015–35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015–35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries, $62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to $184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income, $33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries—a total of $96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015–35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015–35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015–35 (–$14·9 billion in low-income countries; –$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (–$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits.

Global and national initiatives focused on health systems strengthening, universal health coverage, health security, and resilience suffer when these terms are not well understood or believed to be different ways of saying the same thing. Conceptual clarity is essential for a systematic approach to policy-making. Confusion and inefficiency arise when health system strengthening is defined as an objective and also when universal health coverage, health security or resilience are described as separate programmes to be implemented. So here is a simple guide: health system strengthening is what they do; universal health coverage, health security and resilience are what they want.

In the past decade, the Government of China initiated health-care reforms to achieve universal access to health care by 2020. We assessed trends in health-care access and financial protection between 2003, and 2011, nationwide. We used data from the 2003, 2008, and 2011 National Health Services Survey (NHSS), which used multistage stratified cluster sampling to select 94 of 2859 counties from China's 31 provinces and municipalities. The 2011 survey was done with a subset of the NHSS sampling frame to monitor key indicators after the national health-care reforms were announced in 2009. Three sets of indicators were chosen to measure trends in access to coverage, health-care activities, and financial protection. Data were disaggregated by urban or rural residence and by three geographical regions: east, central, and west, and by household income. We examined change in equity across and within regions. The number of households interviewed was 57 023 in 2003, 56 456 in 2008, and 18 822 in 2011. Response rates were 98·3%, 95·0%, and 95·5%, respectively. The number of individuals interviewed was 193 689 in 2003, 177 501 in 2008, and 59 835 in 2011. Between 2003 and 2011, insurance coverage increased from 29·7% (57 526 of 193 689) to 95·7% (57 262 of 59 835, p<0·0001). The average share of inpatient costs reimbursed from insurance increased from 14·4 (13·7–15·1) in 2003 to 46·9 (44·7–49·1) in 2011 (p<0·0001). Hospital delivery rates averaged 95·8% (1219 of 1272) in 2011. Hospital admissions increased 2·5 times to 8·8% (5288 of 59 835, p<0·0001) in 2011 from 3·6% (6981 of 193 689) in 2003. 12·9% of households (2425 of 18 800) had catastrophic health expenses in 2011. Caesarean section rates increased from 19·2% (736 of 3835) to 36·3% (443 of 1221, p<0·0001) between 2003 and 2011. Remarkable increases in insurance coverage and inpatient reimbursement were accompanied by increased use and coverage of health care. Important advances have been made in achieving equal access to services and insurance coverage across and within regions. However, these increases have not been accompanied by reductions in catastrophic health expenses. With the achievement of basic health-services coverage, future challenges include stronger risk protection, and greater efficiency and quality of care. None.

We analyse nine low-income and lower-middle-income countries in Africa and Asia that have implemented national health insurance reforms designed to move towards universal health coverage. Using the functions-of-health-systems framework, we describe these countries' approaches to raising prepaid revenues, pooling risk, and purchasing services. Then, using the coverage-box framework, we assess their progress across three dimensions of coverage: who, what services, and what proportion of health costs are covered. We identify some patterns in the structure of these countries' reforms, such as use of tax revenues to subsidise target populations, steps towards broader risk pools, and emphasis on purchasing services through demand-side financing mechanisms. However, none of the reforms purely conform to common health-system archetypes, nor are they identical to each other. We report some trends in these countries' progress towards universal coverage, such as increasing enrolment in government health insurance, a movement towards expanded benefits packages, and decreasing out-of-pocket spending accompanied by increasing government share of spending on health. Common, comparable indicators of progress towards universal coverage are needed to enable countries undergoing reforms to assess outcomes and make midcourse corrections in policy and implementation.

Significant changes have been witnessed in the Brazilian health system over the last 30 years. This article outlines trends in outpatient and hospital care, staffing, and health service use during this period. There was a significant expansion of the public health network, particularly of primary care services, leading to improved access to consultations and a reduction in hospital admissions. However, there is a persistent shortage of health professionals in Brazil's public health system, particularly dentists. Despite improvements in coverage, the public system continues to face serious challenges, particularly with respect to funding, service provision, and its relationship with the private sector.

Background Within the working population there is a vulnerable group: workers without an employment contract and workers with a flexible labour market arrangement, e.g. temporary agency workers. In most cases, when sick-listed, these workers have no workplace/employer to return to. Also, for these workers access to occupational health care is limited or even absent in many countries. For this vulnerable working population there is a need for tailor-made occupational health care, including the presence of an actual return-to-work perspective. Therefore, a participatory return-to-work program has been developed based on a successful return-to-work intervention for workers, sick-listed due to low back pain. The objective of this paper is to describe the design of a randomised controlled trial to study the (cost-)effectiveness of this newly developed participatory return-to-work program adapted for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders, compared to usual care. Methods/Design The design of this study is a randomised controlled trial with one year of follow-up. The study population consists of temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed between 2 and 8 weeks due to musculoskeletal disorders. The new return-to-work program is a stepwise program aimed at making a consensus-based return-to-work implementation plan with the possibility of a (therapeutic) workplace to return-to-work. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome measure is duration of the sickness benefit period after the first day of reporting sick. Secondary outcome measures are: time until first return-to-work, total number of days of sickness benefit during follow-up; functional status; intensity of musculoskeletal pain; pain coping; and attitude, social influence and self-efficacy determinants. Cost-benefit is evaluated from an insurer's perspective. A process evaluation is part of this study. Discussion For sick-listed workers without an employment contract there can be gained a lot by improving occupational health care, including return-to-work guidance, and by minimising the 'labour market handicap' by creating a return-to-work perspective. In addition, reduction of sickness absence and work disability, i.e. a reduction of disability claims, may result in substantial benefits for the Dutch Social Security System. Trial registration Trial registration number: NTR1047.

This paper analyzes recent policies in the field of Primary Health Care (PHC) and their possible implications for the care model in the Unified Health System (SUS). Initially, some of the concepts that influenced the models of care in the Brazilian public system are revived, and we argue that the Family Health Strategy (ESF) bases for reorienting care practices in primary care are consistent with the principles of the SUS. Below, we analyze the central elements of new federal policies for PHC. We show that changes in the PHC care model threaten the teams' multidisciplinarity, prioritize acute illness care, focus in individual care, weaken the community territorial approach and establish coverage by registration, which evidence redirection of the health policy, harming the principles of universality, integrality, and equity in the SUS.