This paper explores and compares health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the context of existing governance features. Content compiled in the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor combined with other publicly available country information serve as the foundation for this analysis. The analysis mainly covers early response until August 2020, but includes some key policy and epidemiological developments up until December 2020.

A variety of methodologies have been developed to help health systems increase the 'value' created from their available resources. The urgency of creating value is heightened by population ageing, growth in people with complex morbidities, technology advancements, and increased citizen expectations. This study develops a policy framework that seeks to reconcile the various approaches towards value-based policies in health systems. The distinctive contribution is that we focus on the value created by the health system as a whole, including health promotion, thus moving from value-based health care towards a value-based health system perspective. We define health system value to be the contribution of the health system to societal wellbeing. We adopt a framework of five dimensions of value, embracing health improvement, health care responsiveness, financial protection, efficiency and equity, which we map onto a society's aggregate wellbeing. Actors within the health system make different contributions to value, and we argue that their perspectives can be aligned with a unifying concept of health system value. We provide examples of policy levers and highlight key actors and how they can promote certain aspects of health system value. We discuss advantages of value-based approach based on the notion of wellbeing and some practical obstacles to its implementation.

The aim of this study was to review and compare types of reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs issued by eight European health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and the reimbursement status of these drugs in the corresponding countries. Separate calculations were also performed for three sub-groups: ultra-orphan drugs, oncology orphan drugs and other (non-ultra, non-oncology) orphan drugs. We reviewed drugs authorized by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) between 1 November 2002 and 30 September 2015. Among these, we identified 101 orphan drugs. Seventy-nine of them were assessed by eight European HTA agencies. The average rates of positive, conditional and negative reimbursement recommendations issued by these agencies were 55.7 %, 15.3 % and 29.0 %, respectively. On average, 21.2 % of EMA-authorized orphan drugs were reimbursed in the eight European countries studied: 49.0 % of those with positive, 53.6 % of those with conditional, and 16.0 % of those with negative reimbursement recommendations. In addition, 5.4 % of orphan drugs that had not been assessed by any of the eight HTA agencies were also reimbursed. The shares of oncology, ultra, and other orphan drugs that were assessed by HTA agencies were similar, with the lowest share observed in ultra-orphan drugs (72 %) and the highest in other orphan drugs (80 %). In terms of reimbursement, 20 % of oncology orphan drugs, 25 % of ultra-orphan drugs and 21 % of other orphan drugs were reimbursed. Reimbursement of orphan drugs does not always correspond to the type of HTA recommendation. While the highest rate of reimbursement is observed (unsurprisingly) among drugs with positive or conditional recommendation, a high rate of reimbursement (11 %) is also observed among ultra-orphan drugs that had never been assessed by any HTA agency.

Health systems responses to covid-19 can help to identify factors within and outside of the health system that affect its resilience to shocks, suggest Anna Sagan and colleagues