Health systems internationally face demands to deliver care that is better coordinated and integrated. The health system financing and delivery model may go some, but not all the way in explaining health system fragmentation. In this paper, we consider the road to care integration in two countries with Beveridge style health systems, England and Denmark, that are both ranked as highly Integrated systems in Toth's health integration index. We use the SELFIE framework to compare the policies and reforms that have affected care integration over the past 30 years in the two countries. The countries both started their reform path by reforming to introduce choice and competition, but did so in different ways that set them on different pathways. Nevertheless, after two decades, the countries ended the period with largely similar structures that emphasised the creation of a cross-sectoral governance structure. In the relatively centralised England, by introducing decentralised Integrated Care Systems, and in the relatively decentralised Denmark with a centralising element in the form of new Health Clusters.

Bismarckian health systems are mainly governed by social health insurers, but their role, status, and power vary across countries and over time. We compare the role of health insurers in three distinct social health insurance systems in improving health systems' efficiency. In France, insurers work together as a single payer within a highly regulated context. Although this gives insurers substantial bargaining power, collective negotiations with providers are highly political and do not provide appropriate incentives for efficiency. Both Germany and the Netherlands have introduced competition among insurers to foster efficiency. However, the rationale of insurer competition in Germany is unclear because contracts are mostly concluded at a collective level and individual insurers have little power to influence health system efficiency. In the Netherlands, insurer competition is substantially more effective, but primarily focused on price and cost containment. In all three countries, the role of insurers has been transforming slowly to respond to common challenges of assuring care quality and continuity for an ageing population. To assure sustainability, they need to ensure that care providers cooperate with the same quality and efficiency objectives, but their capacity to do so has been limited by insufficient support to enforce public information on provider quality.

This comparison of institutions of science advice during COVID-19 between the Westminster systems of England/UK and Ontario/Canada focuses on the role of science in informing public policy in two central components of the response to the pandemic: the adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and the procuring of vaccines. It compares and contrasts established and purpose-built bodies with varying degrees of independence from the political executive, and shows how each attempted to manage the tensions between scientific and governmental logics of accountability as they negotiated the boundary between science and policy. It uses the comparison to suggest potential lessons about the relative merits and drawbacks of different institutional arrangements for science advice to governments in an emergency.

Despite the acceleration in the use of digital health technologies across different aspects of the healthcare system, the full potential of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) arising from the technologies is not being utilised in decision-making. We examine current national efforts and future opportunities to systematically use RWD and RWE in decision-making in five countries (Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom), and then develop a framework for promotion of the systematic use of RWD and RWE. A review assesses current national efforts, complemented with a three-round consensus-building exercise among an international group of experts (n1 = 44, n2 = 24, n3 = 24) to derive key principles. We find that Estonia and Finland have invested and developed digital health-related policies for several years; Germany and Italy are the more recent arrivals, while the United Kingdom falls somewhere in the middle. Opportunities to promote the systematic use of RWD and RWE were identified for each country. Eight building blocks principles were agreed through consensus, relating to policy scope, institutional role and data collection. Promoting post-market surveillance and digital health technology vigilance ought to rely on clarity in scope and data collection with consensus reached on eight principles to leverage RWD and RWE.

Nurse workforce shortages put healthcare systems under pressure, moving the nursing profession into the core of healthcare policymaking. In this paper, we shift the focus from workforce policy to workforce politics and highlight the political role of nurses in healthcare systems in England, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Using a comparative discursive institutionalist approach, we study how nurses are organised and represented in these four countries. We show how nurse politics plays out at the levels of representation, working conditions, career building, and by breaking with the public healthcare system. Although there are differences between the countries – with nurses in England and Spain under more pressure than in the Netherlands and Sweden – nurses are often not represented in policy discourses; not just because of institutional ignorance but also because of fragmentation of the profession itself. This institutional ignorance and lack of collective representation, we argue, requires attention to foster the role and position of nurses in contemporary healthcare systems.

It must have been early 2000, around the start of the new Millennium. I was working as a junior lecturer/researcher at the then Institute for Health Care Policy and Management at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Still barely familiar with Dutch health care as a policy system, let alone with European health care policy systems I decided that it would be a good idea to attend a seminar of the recently established European Health Policy Group. I had heard good stories about this new multidisciplinary group, founded by Elias Mossialos and Adam Oliver. My PhD thesis supervisor, Tom van der Grinten, also went there, as did some of my colleagues from the Department of Health Economics and Health Insurance, people like Erik Schut and Wynand van de Ven for example. They were close colleagues of me, although our respective disciplines from which we studied health care policy were different.