Serbia: Health System Review

This analysis of the Serbian health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. The health of the Serbian population has improved over the last decade. Life expectancy at birth increased slightly in recent years, but it remains, for example, around 5 years below the average across European Union countries. Some favourable trends have been observed in health status and morbidity rates, including a decrease in the incidence of tuberculosis, but population ageing means that chronic conditions and long-standing disability are increasing. The state exercises a strong governance role in Serbia's social health insurance system. Recent efforts have increased centralization by transferring ownership of buildings and equipment to the national level. The health insurance system provides coverage for almost the entire population (98%). Even though the system is comprehensive and universal, with free access to publicly provided health services, there are inequities in access to primary care and certain population groups (such as the most socially and economically disadvantaged, the uninsured, and the Roma) often experience problems in accessing care. The uneven distribution of health professionals across the country and shortages in some specialities also exacerbate accessibility problems. High out-of-pocket payments, amounting to over 40% of total expenditure on health, contribute to relatively high levels of self-reported unmet need for medical care. Health care provision is characterized by the role of the "chosen doctor" in primary health care centres, who acts as a gatekeeper in the system. Recent public health efforts have focused on improving access to preventive health services, in particular, for vulnerable groups. Health system reforms since 2012 have focused on improving infrastructure and technology, and on implementing an integrated health information system. However, the country lacks a transparent and comprehensive system for assessing the benefits of health care investments and determining how to pay for them.