In 2014, a series of reforms, called as the Health Sector Evolution Plan (HSEP), was launched in the health system of Iran in a stepwise process. HSEP was mainly based on the fifth 5-year health development national strategies (2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016). It included different interventions to: increase population coverage of basic health insurance, increase quality of care in the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoHME) affiliated hospitals, reduce out-of-pocket (OOP) payments for inpatient services, increase quality of primary healthcare, launch updated relative value units (RVUs) of clinical services, and update tariffs to more realistic values. The reforms resulted in extensive social reaction and different professional feedback. The official monitoring program shows general public satisfaction. However, there are some concerns for sustainability of the programs and equity of financing. Securing financial sources and fairness of the financial contribution to the new programs are the main concerns of policy-makers. Healthcare providers' concerns (as powerful and influential stakeholders) potentially threat the sustainability and efficiency of HSEP. Previous experiences on extending health insurance coverage show that they can lead to a regressive healthcare financing and threat financial equity. To secure financial sources and to increase fairness, the contributions of people to new interventions should be progressive by their income and wealth. A specific progressive tax would be the best source, however, since it is not immediately feasible, a stepwise increase in the progressivity of financing must be followed. Technical concerns of healthcare providers (such as nonplausible RVUs for specific procedures or nonefficient insurance-provider processes) should be addressed through proper revision(s) while nontechnical concerns (which are derived from conflicting interests) must be responded through clarification and providing transparent information. The requirements of HSEP and especially the key element of progressive tax should be considered properly in the coming sixth national development plan (2016)(2017)(2018)(2019)(2020)(2021).

Summary Background Sustainable health financing is one of the main challenges of policy makers and planners. This study aimed at comparing the experiences of countries in using the sin tax policies for sustainable health financing resources. Methods This qualitative study was conducted in two phases. First, a comparative study was carried out by searching databases from 1990 to 2017, and six countries (Thailand, England, Australia, the Philippines, South Africa, and Vietnam) were selected. Second, the existing Iranian high policy documents from 2005 to 2017 were reviewed deeply by using the content analysis method. Results The sin tax, such as taxes on tobacco and alcohol, was one of the main policies to provide sustainable health financing in all selected countries. The Iranian health system had no significant‐related legal and political gap, but there were limitations in enforcing and implementing them. Finally, it is necessary to evaluate the policy and follow its effects up. Conclusions The main financial resources in the selected countries included health promotion funds with different names and goals which took taxes on harmful goods, tobacco, and alcohol. Weaknesses in implementing laws and monitoring them were the main reasons for the lack of sustainable financing.

No abstract

The factors affecting the dynamics of lengthening of symptoms and serologic responses are not well known. In order to see how the serologic responses change in relation to the clinical features, we selected a group of 472 adults with a positive IgM/IgG antibody test result from a baseline study of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity, assessed their COVID-19 and past medical histories, and followed them up in about 3 months. Nearly one-fourth of the subjects were asymptomatic at the baseline; 12.8% subjects became symptomatic at the follow-up (FU) when 39.8% of the subjects had some persisting symptoms. At the baseline, 6.1% showed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM positive, 59.3% only for IgG, and 34.5% for both. At the FU, these figures declined to 0.6, 54.0, and 4.4%, respectively, with the mean IgM and IgG levels declining about 6.3 and 2.5 folds. Blood group A was consistently linked to both sustaining and flipping of the gastrointestinal (GI) and respiratory symptoms. The baseline IgM level was associated with GI symptoms and pre-existing cirrhosis in multivariate models. Both of the baseline and FU IgG levels were strongly associated with age, male, and lung involvement seen in chest computed tomography (CT)-scan. Finally, as compared with antibody decayers, IgM sustainers were found to be more anosmic [mean difference (MD): 11.5%; P = 0.047] with lower body mass index (BMI) (MD: 1.30 kg/m2; P = 0.002), while IgG sustainers were more commonly females (MD: 19.2%; P = 0.042) with shorter diarrhea duration in the FU (MD: 2.8 days; P = 0.027). Our findings indicate how the anti-SARS-CoV-2 serologic response and COVID-19 clinical presentations change in relation to each other and basic characteristics.