Background:
The future burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) depends on numerous factors such as population ageing, evolution of societal trends, behavioural and physiological risk factors of individuals (e.g. smoking, alcohol use, obesity, physical inactivity, and hypertension). This study aims to assess the burden of NCDs in Europe by 2050 under alternative scenarios.

Methods:
This study combines qualitative and quantitative forecasting techniques to examine how population health in Europe may evolve from 2015 to 2050, taking into account future societal trends. Four scenarios were developed (one business-as-usual scenario, two response scenarios and one pessimistic scenario) and assessed against 'best' and 'worst'-case scenarios. This study provides quantitative estimates of both diseases and mortality outcomes, using a microsimulation model incorporating international survey data.

Findings:
Each scenario is associated with a different risk factor prevalence rate across Europe during the period 2015-2050. The prevalence and incidence of NCDs consistently increase during the analysed time period, mainly driven by population ageing. In more optimistic scenarios, diseases will appear in later ages, while in the pessimistic scenarios, NCDs will impair working-age people. Life expectancy is expected to grow in all scenarios, but with differences by up to 4 years across scenarios and population groups. Premature mortality from NCDs will be reduced in more optimistic scenarios but stagnate in the worst-case scenario.

Interpretation:
Population ageing will have a greater impact on the spread of NCDs by 2050 compared to risk factors. Nevertheless, risk factors, which are influenced by living environments, are an important factor for determining future life expectancy in Europe.

Background:
In their quest for universal health coverage (UHC), many developing countries explore alternative financing strategies to address the potential budgetary impact of health coverage expansion (for example, deferred debt versus current finance through taxation or premiums). Given the limited fiscal space, these policies may have different implications for fiscal sustainability and may worsen intergenerational inequality.

Methods:
We assessed the impact of UHC on fiscal sustainability and intergenerational inequality using an overlapping generations model within a general equilibrium framework, which we calibrate using data from the Palestinian Expenditures and Consumption Survey (PECS-2011) and the Social Accounting Matrix (SAM-2011). Fiscal sustainability is assessed using a prudent debt–GDP level of 39%. Intergenerational inequality induced by different policies is assessed by comparing the relative incremental burden (RIB) borne by each generation following the policy adjustment.

Findings:
In the absence of any policy adjustment, an ad hoc expansion of health coverage would increase the debt–GDP level to 15% above the prudent level. This indicates that the UHC fiscal stance may be financially unsustainable in the long run, therefore calling for a policy adjustment. Among the policies we examined, UHC finance through the increase of premiums (whether current or deferred) seems to be unsustainable and may further widen intergenerational inequality (RIB∈[3,6]). By contrast, current finance through indirect taxes helps to restore a prudent debt–GDP level and seems to be associated with a lower level of intergenerational inequality than deferred-debt finance through direct taxation (RIB of 1·25 and 5, respectively).

Interpretation:
Among the policy options assessed, the current indirect taxation emerged as the best policy option in terms of its impact on both fiscal sustainability and intergenerational inequalities. However, from a policy perspective, the capacity of governments to raise additional revenues might be constrained in the short-term. Under such circumstances, deferred-debt finance may be preferred—a situation in which policy makers may have to trade fiscal sustainability against intergenerational inequality.

Funding:
The A*MIDEX project (number ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02) funded by the French Government programme Investissements d'avenir, managed by the French National Research Agency (ANR).

Contributors:
SA prepared the data, conceived the framework for the study and carried out data analysis. MA-Z developed the framework for the study, carried out data analysis and wrote the Interpretation section. BV developed the framework for the study. All authors have seen and approved the final version of the Abstract for publication.

[FR]
Selon les projections récentes, les effectifs de médecins libéraux diminueront de 30 % d’ici à 2027 et la densité standardisée diminuerait jusqu’en 2023, créant des poches de sous-densité relativement nombreuses sur le territoire français métropolitain. L’article s’intéresse aux ajustements que les médecins généralistes de ville mettent en œuvre lorsque, sur leur territoire, ils sont d’ores et déjà confrontés à cette raréfaction. Les données utilisées sont celles du troisième panel des médecins généralistes enrichies d’indicateurs fournis par la CNAMTS. Nous nous sommes appuyés sur l’indicateur d’accessibilité potentielle localisé, développé par l’IRDES et la DREES, pour définir les zones les moins dotées en généralistes. En comparant les comportements des généralistes exerçant dans les zones les moins dotées à leurs homologues des zones mieux dotées, il est apparu d’abord que le planning d’activité du médecin tend à s’intensifier plutôt qu’à s’allonger. Nos données semblent en effet montrer que les rythmes de consultation dans les zones les moins dotées sont plus élevés, alors que le temps de travail global des généralistes s’avère quant à lui peu réactif à la densité en médecins alentour. On note aussi quelques différences statistiquement significatives sur les pratiques médicales : usage accru de certains médicaments, moins de renvoi vers des soins paramédicaux, suivis gynécologique probablement un peu moins réguliers, etc. Cependant, il semble que les différences ne sont pas statistiquement significatives pour les indicateurs de qualité des pratiques rattachés au dispositif de rémunération sur objectifs de santé publique (ROSP).
[EN]
According to recent projections, the number of private practice physicians will decrease by 30 % by 2027 and the standardised density will continue to decline up to 2023, thus creating territorial inequalities in physicians’ distribution in mainland France. This article focuses on the adaptations that private general practitioners (GPs) make when they already practice in underserved areas. The data used are those of the third panel of general practitioners matched with indicators provided by the Social Security (CNAMTS). We used the local potential accessibility indicator developed by IRDES and DREES to define the underserved areas for general practitioners. Our results show that GPs’ consultation rhythm is higher in underserved areas, while the overall working-time is not very responsive to the local medical density. We also find some statistically significant differences in practices : more frequent prescription of certain drugs, less referrals to paramedical care, probably less regular gynaecological follow-up, for GPs practicing in underserved areas compared to their counterparts in better-served areas. However, it appears that there are no significant differences regarding the indicators of Rémuneration sur objectifs de santé publique (ROSP) [French supplementary payment-for-performance] program, which could allow a first assessment of the quality of care.

-