Health systems around the world face the dual challenge of addressing climate change and meeting the increasing demand for care caused by climate-related health impacts. A recent study benchmarking the health system performance of 38 countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reveals significant insights about how these nations are faring. The research, conducted as of January 2024, utilizes Multidimensional Scaling and Hierarchical Cluster Analysis to categorize countries based on their greenhouse gas emissions per capita, vulnerability to climate change, and human development status.
According to the study, health systems collectively contribute more than 4% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The urgency of adapting to climate-induced health crises, such as extreme heat and vector-borne diseases, presents challenges for healthcare providers already struggling with existing healthcare needs. The study attempts to map out how countries can mitigate their emissions and improve resilience at the same time.
Five distinct profiles emerged from the analysis: Vulnerable Low Emitters, Vulnerable Aspiring, Middle of the Road, Robust Aspiring, and the Goldilocks Zone. Each profile portrays varying degrees of resilience and performance within the health system, allowing policymakers to identify targeted areas for intervention and funding.
The Goldilocks Zone, which includes countries such as Sweden and the United Kingdom, demonstrates lower greenhouse gas emissions, higher development, and reduced climate vulnerability. This cluster showcases optimal health system performance and serves as a benchmark for others striving to improve their policies and healthcare provision.
The Vulnerable Low Emitters, comprising countries like Mexico and Costa Rica, face significant hurdles. They exhibit high climate vulnerability and lower performance across various health indicators. The study suggests solutions could stem from learning best practices from countries within the Middle of the Road profile, which have similar emissions but slightly higher development indices, indicating their ability to respond more effectively to climate challenges.
Interestingly, the research highlights major differences across health system performance, with significant disparities noted particularly among the areas of Health Status, Quality of Care, and Access to Healthcare. For example, the Goldilocks Zone performed markedly well on these dimensions, showing how effective climate policies can positively impact health outcomes.
The research also emphasizes the need for health systems to become adaptable and resourceful. For example, the study states: "Health systems must adapt to become fit-for-purpose and capable of reducing their own GHGs as an industry, whilst continuing to deliver quality care to all." This adaptability is necessary to meet the growing demands of patients affected by climate change, promoting the importance of resilience within healthcare."
Lastly, the study posits, "Characterising countries within five profiles may help policymakers devise ways to support resilient care practices." This acknowledgment serves to highlight the potential for evidence-based policies to bridge gaps, improve health outcomes, and fortify health systems against future climate challenges.
Policymakers and healthcare leaders are called to action to recognize and incorporate these findings. Tailoring policies to address the specific vulnerabilities identified within each profile could prove instrumental for countries, especially those with limited resources. The comprehensive approach outlined within the study offers pathways for nations to improve their health systems, respond effectively to climate change, and work collectively toward global health equity.