Since the onset of the global financial crisis (GFC), health spending has slowed markedly or fallen in many OECD countries after years of continuous growth. However, health spending patterns across the 34 countries of the OECD have been affected to varying degrees. This article examines in more detail the observed downturn in health expenditure growth, analysing which countries and which sectors of health spending have been most affected. In addition, using more recent preliminary data for a subset of countries, this article tries to shed light on the prospects for health spending trends. Given that public sources account for around three-quarters of total spending on health on average across the OECD, and, in an overall context of managing public deficits, the article focuses on the specific areas of public spending that have been most affected. This study also tries to link the observed trends with some of the main policy measures and instruments put in place by countries. The investigation finds that while nearly all OECD countries have seen health spending growth decrease since 2009, there is wide variation as to the extent of the slowdown, with some countries outside of Europe continuing to see significant growth in health spending. While all sectors of spending appear to have been affected, initial analysis appears to show the greatest decreases has been experienced in pharmaceutical spending and in areas of public health and prevention.

At present, health systems across Europe face the same challenges: a changing demographic profile, a rise in multi-morbidity and long-term conditions, increasing health care costs, large public debts and other legacies of an economic downturn. In light of these concerns, this article provides an overview of the international evidence on how to improve productive efficiency in secondary care settings. Updating and expanding upon a recent review of the literature by Hurst and Williams (2012), we set out evidence on potential interventions in the policy environment, hospital management, and operational processes. We conclude with five key lessons for policy makers and practitioners on how to improve productive efficiency within hospital settings, and identify several gaps in the existing evidence base.

Seen from the perspective of health, the global financial crisis (GFC) may be conceived of as an exogenous factor that has undermined the fiscal sustainability of European welfare states and consequently, their (expanding) health systems as well. Being one of the core programs of European welfare states, health care has always belonged to the sovereignty of European Member States. However, in past two decades, European welfare states have in fact become semi-sovereign states and the European Union (EU) no longer is an exogenous actor in European health policy making. Today, the EU not only puts limits to unsustainable growth levels in health care spending, it also acts as an health policy agenda setter. Since the outbreak of the GFC, it does so in an increasingly coercive and persuasive way, claiming authority over health system reforms alongside the responsibilities of its Member States.

Denmark, Finland and Sweden have experienced two major recessions during the last 25 years. The adjustments to the earlier crisis in the late 1980s (Denmark) and early 1990s (Finland and Sweden) resembled the policies in many other European countries during the present crisis. The analysis of relationship of deep economic crises and growth period between them to the health system policies and institutions in the three countries from the 1980s to 2013 is based on a categorisation of reactions to external shocks as path conforming or path breaking. The results of the empirical long-term trends show that the reactions to deep recessions have been mainly temporary adjustments and acceleration of changes already prepared before economic crisis. The economic crisis in the three countries has not been ‘good enough’ to enable paradigmatic changes in the Nordic public, decentralised and equity-oriented health systems. Changes such as the slow privatisation in care funding and production and the adoption of new management practices indicate an ongoing paradigmatic change related to longer-term societal, ideological and political developments rather than directly to economic crises or growth.

Why are researchers studying the health effects of economic change reaching markedly varying conclusions? To understand these differences, we first systematically searched Web of Science for the literature on recessions and health yielding 461 articles and 14,401 cited documents. We then undertook a network analysis of co-citation pattern by disciplines, journals and backgrounds of the authors, followed by a chronological review of the literature, to trace the evolution of ideas. We then examined the extent to which earlier literature predicted what has happened in the 2007–2012 crisis. Our analysis finds the literature is dominated by disciplinary silos, with economics studies predominantly citing each other and relative isolation of psychiatry and substance abuse journals. Different philosophical approaches to assessing causality appear to contribute to varying interpretations, a tendency that is unlikely to be resolved without a shift in research norms. We conclude by calling for more inter-disciplinary research that combines empirical findings with a search for plausible mechanisms. This approach would evaluate not only the effects of economic shocks but also the mechanisms that offer protection against them.