Legislation in most countries regulates trade in poisons and highly addictive products, such as narcotics. The statements that (1) tobacco harms health and (2) causes addiction are established as facts in international and national law. Yet in Russia, and in many other countries, there is a contradiction between the open sale of this addictive poison and basic laws, such as those on product safety. Provisions in both the Russian constitution and the criminal code can be interpreted as making the sale of tobacco illegal, setting out severe penalties for those involved. Yet, remarkably, tobacco is treated quite differently from other products. In this paper, we describe the experience so far in seeking to enforce this legislation in Russia. Attempts to persuade the police to enforce the legislation have been unsuccessful, although they accept that there is a prima facie case for action but, in private, express fear of taking it. The case for action is currently being argued before the Russian Supreme Court but this could take many years to reach a conclusion. In the mean time, new legislation on the regulation of tobacco production has been passed by the State Duma, with the support of the tobacco industry, which implicitly assumes that tobacco is a lawful product, thereby creating legal confusion. We argue that the only way to redress this situation is to recognize that tobacco production and sales must be regulated in the same way as any other harmful and addictive substance.

A current policy issue is whether, and if so under what circumstances, insurance companies should be given access to genetic test results. The insurance industry argues for mandatory disclosure in order to avoid problems of adverse selection; an alternative would be a moratorium or legislation preventing such disclosure; a third option a voluntary disclosure law. This paper investigates the impact of these policies on individuals' incentives to both acquire genetic information and to disclose it to providers of health and/or life insurance. The theoretical framework used to inform this analysis is provided by the ‘games of persuasion’ literature, in which one agent tries to influence another agent's decision by selectively withholding her private information regarding quality. The application of the theoretical framework to this policy context yields the following results. Individuals have the incentive to acquire genetic information and to disclose the test results if disclosure is voluntary. If, however, they are obliged to disclose the results of any genetic tests they have taken, their incentive may be not to acquire such information. I discuss the policy implications of these findings both from the point of view of the insurance industry and from a public health perspective.

In recent years, a variety of ‘accelerated access’ schemes have been introduced by pharmaceutical regulators and funders globally. These schemes aim to overcome perceived regulatory and reimbursement barriers to accessing medicines – particularly for patients with limited time or therapeutic options. However, patient access to approved medicines is mediated by a number of third parties including regulators and payers, and physicians who act both as gatekeepers and guides to prescribed medications. It is therefore essential to know how physicians think about accelerated access as they are responsible for advising patients on and prescribing medicines made available via these pathways. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 Australian physicians focusing on their attitudes towards accelerated access. We identified three ‘archetypes’ of physicians: ‘confident accelerators’, ‘cautious accelerators’, and ‘decelerators’. Although all acknowledged the potential risks and benefits of accelerated access, they disagreed on their magnitude and extent and how they should be balanced in both policy formation and clinical practice. Overall, our results illustrate the diversity of clinical opinions in this area and the importance of monitoring both the prescribing and clinical outcomes that result from accelerated access programmes to ensure that these are both clinically and morally acceptable.

The election of Donald Trump, coupled with the retention of Republican majorities in the US House of Representatives and Senate, raises questions about future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the structure and funding of the country’s public health insurance programs – Medicare, Medicaid and the Child Health Insurance Program – and the direction of health policy in the United States, more generally. Political scientists are not renowned for their capacity to predict the future and many of those who forecast election results have received criticism in recent weeks for failing to predict the Trump victory. While the future is uncertain, it is possible for social scientists to offer a ‘conditional causal analysis’ about the future. This essay is an effort to think about the likely shape of American health care between now and the next US presidential election.

Amidst the NHS’s (National Health Service) success lies its major weakness, although one that Klein overlooks in his reflections on the NHS as it approaches 70. The focus on, and investment in, curing ill-health has been at the expense of attending to the public’s overall health and well-being. This preoccupation poses a greater threat to the NHS’s future than privatisation. Despite the weakness having been diagnosed decades ago, redressing the imbalance has proved stubbornly hard to achieve. Rhetoric has not been translated into reality. Yet, we may be on the cusp of a tipping point where in order to ensure a sustainable NHS, and one that is capable of meeting the 21st century challenges facing it, there is a renewed and overdue interest in promoting health and well-being in communities. But for this to succeed, the NHS will need to embrace its bete noire, local government.

In health care systems based upon managed competition, insurers are expected to negotiate with providers about price and quality of care. The Dutch experience, however, shows that quality plays a limited role in insurer–provider negotiations. It has been suggested that this is partly due to a lack of cooperation among insurers. This raises the question whether cooperation amongst insurers is a precondition or a substitute for quality-based competition. To answer this question, we mapped insurers' cooperating activities to enhance quality of care using a six-stage continuum. The first three stages (defining, designing and measuring quality indicators) may enhance competition, whereas the next three stages (setting benchmarks, steering patients and selective contracting) may reduce it. We investigated which types of insurer cooperation currently take place in the Netherlands. Additionally, we organized focus groups among insurers, providers and other stakeholders to examine their perceptions on insurer cooperation. We find that all stakeholders see advantages of cooperation amongst insurers in the first stages of the continuum and sometimes cooperate in this domain. Cooperation in the next stages is almost absent and more controversial because without adequate quality information, it is difficult to assess whether the benefits outweigh the cost associated with reduced competition.

Part of the controversy surrounding competition and health care stems from the complexity connected with delineating the applicability of competition law – encompassing both the provisions governing anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominance and the state-aid rules. Cases determined at the European Union (EU) level within the past 30 years have developed a broad framework, and notable trends have emerged – for example, a distinction between health care providers and managing bodies (purchasers). The former have been subject to an ‘abstract’ test and the latter to a more sophisticated ‘concrete’ test. In this paper, we chart the development of the EU courts’ approach to developing the ‘undertaking’ concept in health care and examine the current EU competition law framework with a view to identifying future directions. van de Gronden has recently identified a ‘three-prong’ test of exemption from competition law in connection with the recent CEPPB case: firstly, where the supply of services is predominantly dependent upon public financing; secondly, the public funding aims to achieve a public interest goal and thirdly, the activities concerned are closely related to this public interest goal. We examine this test in a health care context, drawing on our findings regarding Dutch competition reforms.

The privatisation of provision and the emerging privatisation of funding, manifested in the rapid rise of private health insurance, are the most obvious signs that the universal, Swedish health system is gradually weakened. Meanwhile, the private welfare industry creates a neoliberal Newspeak where the burdening effects of the private insurance system on public healthcare are said to be unburdening, and where every step away from the principles of a universal welfare model is said to be in line with the principles of a universal welfare model. The language spoken by the private welfare industry spills over into authorities, journalists and scholars. In this article, I discuss, problematise and partially reject two research questions – Does VHI unburden the public health care system? and Are VHI holders less supportive of funding public health care? – where the authors fail to place development in the context of increased inequality and declining tax ratio, and where they use the welfare industry's definitions invented to blur the consequences of a parallel health system.

Chronic diseases are highly important for the future level and distribution of health and well-being in western societies. Consequently, it seems pertinent to assess not only efficiency of chronic care but also its impact on health equity. However, operationalisation of health equity has proven a challenging task. Challenges include identifying a relevant and measurable evaluative space. Various schools of thought in health economics have identified different outcomes of interest for equity assessment, with capabilities as a proposed alternative to more conventional economic conceptualisations. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the conceptualisation of health equity evaluation in the context of chronic disease management. We do this by firstly introducing an equity enquiry framework incorporating the capabilities approach. Secondly, we demonstrate the application and relevance of this framework through a content analysis of equity-related principles and aims in national chronic disease management guidelines and the national diabetes action plan in Denmark. Finally, we discuss how conceptualisations of equity focused on capabilities may be used in evaluation by scoping relevant operationalisations. A promising way forward in the context of chronic care evaluation may emerge from a combination of concepts of capabilities developed in economics, health sciences and psychology.

This contribution examines the responses of five health systems in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Denmark, Germany, Israel, Spain and Sweden. The aim is to understand to what extent this crisis response of these countries was resilient. The study focuses on hospital care structures, considering both existing capacity before the pandemic and the management and expansion of capacity during the crisis. Evaluation criteria include flexibility in the use of existing resources and response planning, as well as the ability to create surge capacity. Data were collected from country experts using a structured questionnaire. Main findings are that not only the total number but also the availability of hospital beds is critical to resilience, as is the ability to mobilise (highly) qualified personnel. Indispensable for rapid capacity adjustment is the availability of data. Countries with more centralised hospital care structures, more sophisticated concepts for providing specialised services and stronger integration of the inpatient and outpatient sectors have clear structural advantages. A solid digital infrastructure is also conducive. Finally, a centralised governance structure is crucial for flexibility and adaptability. In decentralised systems, robust mechanisms to coordinate across levels are important to strengthen health care system resilience in pandemic situations and beyond.

Rising suicide rates have been identified as a social problem in several Western countries. The application of a Welfare Economics argument justifies a role for policy that reduces the welfare impact of suicide, whereas the measurement of that impact can inform policy making. Two dimensions of the concept can be measured: the social loss from suicide, and the inequality in the distribution of that loss. In this study, an alternative measure of suicide to the conventional suicide headcount, viz. the potential years of life lost (PYLL), is employed. The PYLL measure is a proxy measure of the social impact of suicide, and involves the concept of ‘premature’ loss of life. The PYLL also lends itself to inequality measurement. We apply the approach to inequality measurement of health phenomena that was pioneered in the 1980s by Jacques Silber and Julian Le Grand, in a literature now described as measuring health inequality per se. The empirical part of the paper statistically estimates equations on Australian suicide data for the period 1907–2003 and determines the trends in the social loss from suicide and the inequality of its age distribution. Some illustrative examples assist in interpreting the welfare impact of suicide measured both ways, by the headcount rate and the PYLL rate.

The conventionally antithetical stereotypes of the United Kingdom and United States health care systems needs to be modified in the case of the elderly. Relative to the rest of the population, the over-65s in the United States are more satisfied with their medical care than their UK counterparts. There is also much common ground: shared worries about the quality of elderly care and similar attitudes towards assisted death. Comparison is further complicated by within country variations: comparative studies should take account of the fact that even seemingly polar models may have pools of similarity.

In this article we consider the conclusions and recommendations of the World Health Organisation’s report Making Fair Choices from a philosophical perspective. In particular we reflect on the report’s return to substantive claims about justice in the allocation of health care resources and its argument that certain trade-offs are ‘generally unacceptable’.

This short commentary on Oliver’s review of incentives relates that review to four models of governance: Trust and Altruism (T&A), Choice and Competition (C&C), Naming and Shaming (N&S) and Targets and Terror (T&T).