Health policy reforms often fail due to design flaws, implementation gaps, and political barriers. This paper examines the role of government stewardship in addressing these barriers drawing on lessons from healthcare reforms in Sanming, China, a city that has become a nationally recognised model for comprehensive health system reform. Employing a qualitative approach, the analysis traces how six core stewardship functions - strategic visioning, institutional alignment, instrument design, partnership management, accountability reinforcement, and learning facilitation - enabled Sanming's government to control costs and improve service delivery and health outcomes. Sanming's experience illustrates the potential for local government stewardship to catalyse reform in the face of constraints. Interviews indicated that strengthened stewardship enabled the government to set strategic direction for the health system, mobilise stakeholders, formulate workable policies, and adapt to changing needs during implementation. However, participants identified persistent challenges, including uneven distribution of capacity across agencies, changes in the external policy environment, and deficient stakeholder feedback loops. While specific to the local context, the core stewardship competencies identified in the paper offer a generalisable framework for strengthening reform governance in other settings. As countries seek to build resilient and equitable health systems, the lessons from Sanming's stewardship model provide a timely contribution to the global health reform discourse.

Legal provisions in trade agreements, including those related to intellectual property (IP), can impede access to medicines. The 12-party Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is currently undergoing a review. This provides an opportunity to update the CPTPP's Intellectual Property Chapter to remove certain provisions that were negotiated in the context of its precursor, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), many of which have been suspended. These include several 'TRIPS-Plus' provisions - IP provisions exceeding the requirements of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). This paper reviews the CPTPP's TRIPS-Plus provisions, including those suspended and those still in place, and argues for their removal based on evidence of their likely effects on medicines access and recent changes in the political environment. Since the CPTPP was signed in 2018, accumulated evidence has demonstrated that TRIPS-Plus provisions negatively impact access to medicines. Lack of access to COVID-19 medical products in low- and middle-income countries has highlighted major problems with TRIPS. Furthermore, the US has diverged from a TRIPS-Plus agenda, rendering the suspended provisions obsolete. Removing the CPTPP's TRIPS-Plus provisions, while challenging, would preserve Parties' policy flexibility to design their laws in ways that protect access to medicines.

Mixed markets can enhance welfare compared to full public or private provision. However, this welfare gain depends on the extent to which market distortions exist. Recent literature demonstrates distortions in mixed long-term care markets worldwide. Our study explores potential distortions in the Dutch institutional market. While all Dutch residential nursing homes are non-profit, for-profit organisations, including private equity (PE) firms, have increasingly entered the market, offering round-the-clock care provided in home-like settings as an alternative to non-profit residential care.We analysed claims data from 2017-2021 for dementia patients aged 70 and older using multinomial logit and Cox Proportional Hazards models. Specifically, we compared risk selection, upgrading, and care quality (measured by avoidable hospitalisations and mortality) between for-profit and non-profit providers.Our findings do not suggest increased risk selection, higher upgrading, or lower care quality by for-profit (PE-owned) providers compared to non-profit providers. Consequently, we did not find evidence of strong market distortions in the Dutch institutional long-term care market. These results contrast with the existing international literature, suggesting that adverse incentives in the Netherlands may be influenced more by the way care is provided (in home-like settings versus in residential nursing homes) and financing structures rather than ownership type alone.

The European Union (EU) is currently overhauling its pharmaceutical regulations, seeking to mature a single market for medicines as part of a 'European Health Union'. We reflect on the interactions between regulations and markets in these reforms and investigate what this single market for medicines may mean in practice. We note how the proposed reforms aim to ensure equitable access to innovative treatments, yet at the same time, tie this access directly to regulatory exclusivities, limiting price competition. The reforms also do not seek full pricing transparency: prices will remain largely opaque and be set at the national levels rather than created through market exchange and open competition at the EU level. The envisioned single market for medicines thus remains a market that operates without direct reference to price - a situation not addressed head-on by the proposed reforms.

Compounded by 14 years of public welfare austerity, health equality presents a challenge that extends beyond healthcare in isolation because it also engages the more recondite politics of public health. Recent policy has addressed the issue by requiring National Health Service (NHS) bodies to integrate their services with those of local authorities. We consider how this adds significant new difficulty to the already complex process of NHS resource allocation. We argue that these duties require a new framework to gauge the values, evidence and criteria needed to set priorities for public health; not simply as a desirable objective, but a necessity in law. We consider current approaches to priority setting for medical treatment, and the responses already offered by current ethical frameworks. We then discuss the new ethical, political, and practical challenges posed by public health priority setting for health equality. Informed by this context, we engage an intersectional lens to explore a 'non-ideal' solution grounded in Professor Sir Michael Marmot's framework to reduce health inequalities.

During the 1970s and 1980s, over 30,000 people in the UK were infected with HIV and/or hepatitis C because of treatment with blood and blood products for conditions such as haemophilia or through blood transfusion. We used the social harms perspective to understand the experiences of those affected. We conducted in-depth interviews with 41 infected people and 11 family members and analysed the data according to five dimensions of social harm: physical harms, psychological harms, cultural harms, economic harms, and harms of misrecognition. We found that people were harmed by the medical system, the social context that perpetuated stigma and shame against them, and successive governments being largely unwilling to address the many health, social, and economic impacts of infection on families. What stood out were the many reports of harms of misrecognition, which were often experienced as more irreconcilable than the circumstances of infection itself. They were also harms that have been largely ignored.While patient safety encompasses a broad field of work, much of the research focuses on physical harm and medical error. The social harms lens can provide important insights into patient safety incidents as it can help explain the complexity of the different dimensions of harm that individuals and their families experience.

The Making Care Primary (MCP) model represents a sharp shift in Medicare's approach to primary care, yet its current design risks duplicating failures from prior alternative payment models. Our editorial suggests refinements to address these gaps. To prevent early provider dropout from MCP's rigid track-based system, we propose a sliding-scale infrastructure payment model that adjusts based on practice needs rather than abrupt phase-outs. Given MCP's reliance on community-based organisations (CBOs) for social determinants of health interventions, we also advocate for direct, outcomes-based contracts between providers and CBOs, ensuring accountability for patient outcomes rather than passive referrals. We recommend that MCP enforce data-sharing mandates for commercial insurers and Medicaid agencies, drawing from Washington State's successful Multi-Payer Collaborative, to avoid payer disengagement that plagued previous multi-payer models. To expand beyond conventional quality measures, we propose integrating patient-centred outcomes from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, making sure MCP captures meaningful clinical impact. Finally, we propose programme adjustments frequently at two- to three-year intervals to refine risk adjustment methodologies. These approaches could enhance MCP's sustainability, preventing the financial instability and misaligned incentives that undermined past value-based care initiatives.

We present a methodology for a new composite, quantitative "mash-up" index of health system sustainability and resilience, drawing on a qualitative framework developed to assess these dimensions of the health system. The paper summarises quantifiable measures of sustainability and resilience, with sustainability defined through 7 domains and 50 indicator variables, while health system resilience is based on 6 domains and 23 variables. Each domain is captured by a separate index. A composite index is constructed through aggregation across the two dimensions, and their associated domains and indicators. All indices are aggregated through estimation of a geometric means, and are bound between 0 and 100. We pilot across 5 countries over 23 years, with the ultimate aim of identifying health policy strategies for improving national health system capacities and performances; as well as facilitating policy responses to address problematic issues of sustainability and resilience. Face validity suggests that the index captures the non-resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pilot study reveals considerable differences at both the dimension and domain levels within and between the examined countries, while suggesting scope for improvement in both dimensions across all countries. The index thus provides an indicative approach for temporal and spatial yardstick comparison.

While a substantial amount of evidence exists on factors associated with positive health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes, the evidence on the same regarding rejections is scarce. Using a proprietary dataset of HTA outcomes in seven Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, we empirically examine the factors associated with HTA rejections and study the magnitude of inter-agency differences in technology appraisals. Data were extracted from HTA reports between 2009 and 2020. The primary outcome was the probability of rejection, which was examined with respect to several regulatory, disease-related, evidence (clinical and economic) and unaddressed uncertainty variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used. Out of N = 1,405 HTA assessments, the rejection rate was 12.9% (n = 181). Significant predictors of HTA rejection were submissions for drugs with cancer or orphan indications (but not both), low quality of evidence and the presence of uncertainties surrounding clinical benefit, cost-effectiveness, and economic model utility inputs. Systematic differences between agencies in their propensity for rejecting the same drugs were revealed, particularly in relation to cancer and rare diseases. Despite the low rejection rate, our findings suggest that it is critical to improve quality of evidence, focus on risk mitigation strategies as a means of reducing the impact of uncertainties and share HTA practices across borders to increase consistency in decision-making.

This editorial introduces the special issue dedicated to commemorating the life and scholarly achievements of Professor Joan Rovira Forns, a distinguished health economist whose pioneering work continues to influence global health policy and research. We discuss why Professor Rovira was a prominent figure in the field and summarise some of his key contributions. Next, we highlight the collection of papers featured in this issue, explaining how they connect to his work and contribute to his lasting legacy by celebrating his interdisciplinary approach and dedication to societal impact.

This study estimates productivity losses resulting from intellectual decrement due to paediatric lead exposure in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The published literature on blood lead levels in LMICs was reviewed and summarised. Intelligence Quotient decrement and consequent productivity losses were calculated for a one-year cohort of 5-year-old children in each country. We calculated the present value of lifetime earnings as the discounted average earning potential for workers in a specific economy. Blood lead level (BLL) data for children were available for 39 countries and could be interpolated for additional 82 countries, resulting in 121 countries in the final analysis. Total lead-attributable productivity losses in LMICs ranged from USD 305 billion in our high discount scenario to USD 499 billion in our low discount scenario for each one-year cohort of 5-year-old children (2019 USD). As a share of GDP, these costs ranged from 0.7 to 4.2% by region, depending on discount scenario used. Total economic impacts were generally consistent with previous estimates and further validate those efforts with a substantially expanded dataset. Differences in the findings resulted primarily from the use of a more conservative dose-response model in the present study. Improved reporting of BLLs is essential and could be facilitated through a centralised registry of study results.

Despite the tremendous waste due to Medicaid fraud and abuse, not much scholarly attention has been paid to state variation in the investigations. This study explores the factors influencing variations in Medicaid fraud and abuse investigations across U.S. states, with a focus on the role of All-Payer Claims Databases (APCDs) and state political context. To test the impacts of price transparency and political factors, we built a dataset spanning eight years (2014 to 2021) and covering 49 states, excluding North Dakota. We then conducted a fixed-effects panel data analysis based on the results of a Hausman test. The impact of APCDs is statistically significant, suggesting its association with more fraud and abuse detection. A Democratic governor tends to be associated with fewer Medicaid fraud investigations. The findings of this research demonstrate that the operation of APCDs can influence the number of Medicaid fraud investigations conducted by Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs). Moreover, political discretion plays a role in the number of state investigations into Medicaid fraud and abuse.

A substantial share of the global population continues to face barriers to accessing essential medicines. While the pharmaceutical industry's business model has successfully facilitated the development of innovative medications, efforts to promote universal access to medicines (UAM) remain ineffective. This paper critically assesses the existing barriers to global access to medicines, including the role of unsuitable governance, the protection of intellectual property rights, and other market barriers such as shortages, quality shortcomings, and high prices. Furthermore, we explore a number of promising potential strategies that can help towards achieving the UAM. Specifically, we evaluate the evidence from various initiatives, including alternative models of innovation, manufacturing, procurement, intellectual property management, and structural/organisational operations. We argue that the effective realisation of UAM requires a robust framework to implement these initiatives. This framework must strike a delicate balance between addressing public health needs, incentivising research and development, and ensuring affordability. Achieving such a balance encompasses a careful oversight and collaboration between national and international regulatory bodies.

In the Dutch health care system of regulated competition, health insurers are assigned the crucial role of prudent purchasers and expected to critically contract providers based on the quality and prices of their services. Thus far, however, these organisations have struggled to fulfil this role. This study sheds new light on the purchasing behaviour of Dutch health insurers. We examine how insurers perceive the context in which the value-based purchasing of hospital care should take shape, and we draw on insights from institutional theory to frame our analysis. Our findings are based on a series of semi-structured interviews ( = 18) with employees and representatives of several insurer companies whose combined market shares add up to over 90 per cent of all premium payers. Our analysis highlights an environment in which market mechanisms are tangled up with historically rooted budgeting practices, where insurers are pressured to sustain rather than critique hospitals, and where self-regulating medical professionals are firmly supported by society's deep-seated belief in the quality of their services. Like many other organisations, Dutch health insurers tend to conform to their institutional environment. While this conformity may aid them in organisational stability and survival, it also restricts their ability to purchase prudently.

This article examines the relationship between primary care (PC) settings and the uptake of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines in 29 European countries. Using multiple linear regression, the study evaluates whether PC settings influence vaccine uptake (VU) for these two vaccines. Based on secondary data, the study shows that people behave differently in the context of COVID-19 and influenza vaccination. Our findings suggest that health systems relied less on PC during the pandemic, not fully using its potential for COVID-19 vaccination. Even if the bivariate correlations highlight the importance of PC, the regression analysis did not verify a direct relation between PC strength and the COVID-19 VU. In contrast, for influenza vaccination, PC strength was the only significant variable. The core research message is that systematic comparative evidence regarding the relation between PC and VU is needed. Based on the belief that appropriate PC setting and adequate general practitioners (GP) involvement in vaccination could contribute to higher VU, the main policy implication of the research is that more attention needs to be paid to PC setting and the role of GPs in vaccination policy.

Competition regulation plays a key role in determining firm size, market structure, and what firms can do with their market power. In this paper, we explore how competition regulation in many countries has largely tolerated rising industry concentration and market power in harmful consumer product industries, which, in turn, has likely facilitated an increase in preventable death and disease associated with such industries (ie. industrial epidemics). One important reason for this tolerance has been the rise of the 'consumer welfare' standard, which contends that competition regulators should only focus on a narrow set of concerns mostly relating to consumer price and output. Yet, recent developments shed light on potential avenues through which competition regulation could work more synergistically with public health policies and programmes. While discussions on how to leverage competition regulation along these lines are invariably contested and complex, we argue that it is critical that public health advocates engage with these discussions.

The standard analytical framework of insurance markets by Einav and Finkelstein (EF) focuses on the problem of welfare loss for low-risk individuals. A key assumption of this framework is that demand and cost curves are tightly linked, meaning that people are willing to pay a price equal to their expected cost plus a risk premium. Using data from the German risk-adjustment system we show that the distribution of expected health care costs is extremely skewed. We show that incorporating the extreme skewness of predictable individual health care expenses in the EF framework has important welfare consequences, which are typically overlooked when using this framework for analysing the negative welfare effects of voluntary health insurance markets with asymmetric information. Rather than the welfare loss of low-risk individuals due to underinsurance, the main problem of voluntary health insurance markets is the welfare loss of high-risk individuals not getting access to health insurance and affordable health care. We discuss that among the policy approaches to reduce this problem, mandatory health insurance with mandatory cross subsidies is likely to be the most effective, which is typically not recognised when focusing primarily on the welfare loss for low-risk individuals.

While the literature has largely focused on legal challenges to public healthcare rationing decisions, claims against private insurance companies in voluntary health insurance (VHI) schemes have received less attention. This paper aims to fill this gap by analysing a representative sample of 1,547 court of appeal decisions related to treatment funding claims filed against private insurance companies in Brazil from 2018 to 2021. Courts decided 83.6% of cases in favour of patients, ordering VHI companies to fully fund the claimed treatment. Patients´ rate of success is even higher (96%) in the cases in which insurance companies denied coverage on the grounds that the claimed treatment was not listed in the benefits package mandated by regulation. Court decisions present additional challenges to setting priorities through health technology assessment and explicit packages in the VHI sector. This has broader implications for health care equality and access in Brazil.

Health insurers' role in healthcare systems based on managed competition comprises various tasks. Misconceptions about these tasks may result in low public trust, which may hamper health insurers in performing their tasks. This study examines the relationship between enrollees' perceptions of health insurers' tasks and their trust in them.