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. Our findings suggest that despite the many similarities in adopted policy measures, the five countries display differences in implementation as well as outcomes. Declaration of state of emergency has differed in the Nordic region, whereas the emphasis on specialist advisory agencies in the decision-making process is a common feature. There may be differences in how respective populations complied with the recommended measures, and we suggest that other structural and circumstantial factors may have an important role in variations in outcomes across the Nordic countries. The high incidence rates among migrant populations and temporary migrant workers, as well as differences in working conditions are important factors to explore further. An important question for future research is how the COVID-19 epidemic will

The Nordic countries are healthcare systems with tax-based financing and ambitions for universal access to comprehensive services. This implies that distribution of healthcare resources should be based on individual needs, not on the ability to pay. Despite this ideological orientation, significant expansion in voluntary private health insurance (VPHI) contracts has occurred in recent decades. The development and role of VPHIs are different across the Nordic countries. Complementary VPHI plays a significant role in Denmark and in Finland. Supplementary VPHI is prominent in Norway and Sweden. The aim of this paper is to explore drivers behind the developments of the VPHI markets in the Nordic countries. We analyze the developments in terms of the following aspects: the performance of the statutory system (real or perceived), lack of coverage in certain areas of healthcare, governmental interventions or inability to reform the system, policy trends and the general socio-cultural environment, and policy responses to voting behavior or lobbying by certain interest groups. It seems that the early developments in VPHI markets have been an answer to the gaps in the national health systems created by institutional contexts, political decisions, and cultural interpretations on the functioning of the system. However, once the market is created it introduces new dynamics that have less to do with gaps and inflexibilities and more with cultural factors.

Background Obligations arising from trade and investment agreements can affect how governments can regulate and organise health systems. The European Union has made explicit statements of safeguarding policy space for health systems. We assessed to what extent health systems were safeguarded in trade negotiations using the European Union (EU) negotiation proposals for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the negotiated agreement for the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Methods We assessed if and to what extent the European Union policy assurances were upheld in trade negotiations. Our assessment was made using three process tracing informed tests. The tests examined: i) what was covered in negotiation proposals of services and investment chapters, ii) if treatment of health services differed from treatment of another category of services (audiovisual services) with similar EU Treaty considerations, and iii) if other means of general exceptions, declarations or emphases on right to regulate could have resulted in the same outcome. Results Our analysis shows that the European Union had sought to secure policy space for publicly funded health services for services chapter, but not for investment and investment protection chapters. In comparison to audiovisual services, exceptions for health services fall short from those on audiovisual services. There is little evidence that the same outcome could have been achieved using other avenues. Conclusions The European Union has not achieved its own assurances of protection of regulatory policy space for health services in trade negotiations. The European Union trade negotiation priorities need to change to ensure that its negotiation practices comply with its own assurances for health services and sustainable financing of health systems.