Health Policies Archives

Mapping the efficiency of cancer care in Greece: findings from the All.Can Greece report

Cancer care efficiency in Greece remains one of the most complex and pressing challenges for the Greek health system — not only in terms of its clinical burden, but also in how care is organized around the patient.

With approximately 63,000 new cancer cases diagnosed annually and more than 32,000 cancer-related deaths each year, Greece faces a steadily increasing oncological burden. Projections suggest that cancer incidence will rise by around 23% by 2040, further intensifying pressure on health services.

Against this backdrop, All.Can Greece has published a landmark report titled “Mapping the Efficiency of Cancer Care in Greece”, based on the pilot implementation of the All.Can Action Guide for Efficient Cancer Care.

Rather than simply describing the current situation, the report aims to measure it — identifying where efficiency is lost across the cancer care pathway and where targeted reforms could make the greatest impact.

Cancer care efficiency in Greece: delays in care delivery

One of the most critical findings of the report relates to delays in the patient journey.

Despite the existence of modern infrastructure and highly specialized oncology centres, significant delays persist between initial suspicion, diagnosis, and the start of treatment.

These delays are not the result of a single bottleneck, but of systemic fragmentation:

fragmented referral pathways,
limited coordination between levels of care,
and the absence of standardized clinical protocols.

A key structural weakness is the lack of systematic monitoring of waiting times and time-to-treatment indicators. As a result, inefficiencies remain partially invisible to the system itself, limiting the ability to implement targeted improvements.

Fragmentation across the care continuum

The report highlights a broader issue of fragmentation in cancer care delivery.

The patient journey from primary care to specialist oncology services is often not clearly structured or consistently coordinated. Referral pathways depend heavily on individual practice rather than standardized national protocols.

A major gap is the absence of structured patient navigation services. In practice, this means that patients and families are often left to navigate a complex system on their own, increasing delays and adding unnecessary psychological burden.

At the same time, multidisciplinary tumor boards represent a positive development, supporting collaborative clinical decision-making across specialties. However, systematic monitoring of their performance remains limited.

The development of Comprehensive Cancer Centers is identified as a promising step forward, although further regulatory strengthening and clearer governance structures are still needed to maximize their impact.

Patient-centered care: progress with remaining gaps

Greece has made notable progress in collecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs), reflecting a growing commitment to integrating patient perspectives into care delivery.

However, patients’ access to their own clinical data remains limited, restricting their ability to actively participate in decision-making processes.

In addition, patient education and shared decision-making are not yet systematically embedded across the health system.

Another important gap concerns survivorship care. As cancer survival rates improve, the lack of structured long-term follow-up pathways leaves many patients without continuous support after active treatment ends.

Key policy directions

The report outlines several strategic priorities for improving cancer care efficiency in Greece:

Development of a comprehensive national cancer strategy with clear targets and governance mechanisms
Strengthening coordination across all levels of care
Implementation of standardized clinical pathways with defined time-to-treatment and quality indicators
Investment in oncology workforce capacity, particularly in shortage specialties
Establishment of structured patient navigation programmes
Acceleration of Comprehensive Cancer Center development
Systematic use of health data for monitoring performance and accountability
Greater patient engagement through PROMs, PREMs, and shared decision-making

Conclusion: a system with strong foundations but limited integration

Greece has many of the essential building blocks for a high-performing cancer care system — including infrastructure, clinical expertise, and emerging digital health capabilities.

However, the key challenge lies not in the existence of these components, but in their integration.

The All.Can Greece report highlights a system that is still operating in silos: strong individual elements that do not yet function as a fully connected care pathway.

In oncology, this lack of integration is not merely an organizational issue. It directly affects timeliness, patient experience, and ultimately outcomes.

The opportunity now lies in moving from fragmented capacity to coordinated care — where patients no longer have to bridge the gaps between system components themselves.

Source: Mapping-the-Efficiency-of-Cancer-Care-in-Greece-FINAL

Text/adaptation: Ifiyenia Anastasiou for Kapa3

EOPYY: New reimbursement framework for respiratory devices – What changes for patients

The reimbursement of respiratory devices under EOPYY has been updated through a new decision published in the Government Gazette (FEK) on April 27, 2026.

On April 27, 2026, a new EOPYY decision was published in the Government Gazette, establishing revised reimbursement prices for respiratory devices such as CPAP, Auto CPAP, and BiPAP machines.

These are medical devices primarily used by patients with respiratory disorders, including sleep apnoea, and they represent a fundamental part of daily treatment and quality of life.

EOPYY reimbursement for respiratory devices: what changes

With this regulation:

specific reimbursement prices are defined for each category of respiratory device
the prices apply to all products included in the Reimbursed Medical Devices Register
previous decisions for the same categories are replaced

Prices are unified per device category, regardless of manufacturer or commercial model.

What this means for patients

The new EOPYY reimbursement framework for respiratory devices provides a clearer structure for people living with respiratory conditions who depend on these devices in their daily lives:

it clarifies what is covered by EOPYY
it strengthens transparency regarding equipment costs
it ensures access to essential therapeutic tools that are not a choice, but a necessity

In some cases, a patient co-payment may apply when the device price exceeds the reimbursement amount.

Temporary nature of the regulation

The decision is considered temporary, as it is part of a transitional framework until the completion of the negotiation process for final pricing.

Nevertheless, it is fully applicable from the moment of its publication in the Government Gazette and constitutes the current reimbursement framework.

A more human perspective

Behind technical terms, codes, and regulatory tables, there are people who rely on these devices to breathe better, sleep better, and maintain a more stable daily life.

A clear reimbursement framework is not merely an administrative measure. It helps reduce uncertainty in situations that are already difficult to manage.

Source

The full text of the decision, along with the detailed list of reimbursed respiratory devices and corresponding prices, is available (in Greek) in the Government Gazette (FEK) of April 27, 2026.

Text/adaptation: Ifiyenia Anastasiou for Kapa3

When Violence Meets Burnout: What Turkish Doctors and Nurses Reveal

The study, published in International Nursing Review (2025), examines the impact of violence perpetrated by patients and visitors against healthcare professionals in Türkiye. It was conducted by researchers from Izmir Tinaztepe University, Tekirdag Namik Kemal University, and Izmir University of Economics.

A total of 387 physicians and nurses participated, with the aim of assessing how workplace violence influences burnout and whether fear of future violence acts as a mediating factor. In this context, violence can manifest verbally (shouting, threats, insults), physically (pushing, hitting, even more severe incidents), or psychologically (intimidation, pressure).

Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the researchers analyzed the effects of violence on emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment.

Key findings of the study include:

Violence increases burnout: Exposure to violence significantly heightens emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.
Unexpected resilience: In some cases, exposure reduces diminished personal accomplishment, suggesting identity reinforcement or coping mechanisms.
Fear of future violence: While not strongly linked to exhaustion or depersonalization, it lowers feelings of accomplishment.
Profession-specific differences: Nurses report far higher levels of direct violence, exhaustion, and depersonalization, while physicians show greater fear of future violence but stronger accomplishment.
Policy–practice gap: Despite existing legislation in Türkiye, healthcare staff feel insufficiently supported.
Cultural factors: Normalization of violence, patriarchal norms, and stigma affect both experiences and reporting.
Solutions: Organizational support, violence-prevention training, and simulation-based programs reduce fear and burnout, while structural reforms (e.g., shorter waiting times) help alleviate patient frustration.

A Call for Change:
Workplace violence is a serious occupational hazard for healthcare workers. It leads to emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced accomplishment, with varying intensity across professions. Addressing it requires not only laws but also meaningful organizational, cultural, and systemic interventions to protect professionals and improve patient care.