What the pandemic revealed about a health system built for a different century

Ukraine inherited a health system designed around a specific idea: that health care means hospital beds, and that more beds means better care. By that metric the country was well provided for, with a bed count per head above the European average.

Outcomes did not follow. Life expectancy sat well below the EU level, cardiovascular mortality was among the highest in Europe, and tuberculosis and HIV burdens were serious. The pandemic made the gap between capacity and capability impossible to ignore.

What the structure actually was

The Soviet model financed hospitals for existing, regardless of what they did. A facility received a budget based on its bed count and staff establishment, which meant the incentive was to keep beds occupied and staff employed rather than to treat people well.

Primary care was weak, because the system directed patients to specialists and hospitals rather than to a family doctor. Preventive care barely existed as a funded activity. Equipment was concentrated in a few large urban facilities and absent in most district hospitals.

And a substantial share of actual health spending was informal — payments made directly by patients to doctors for care that was nominally free. That is a regressive tax on illness and it distorted every incentive in the system.

What the 2017 reform changed

The financing model was rebuilt around the principle that money follows the patient. A national health service purchases defined services from providers under contract, rather than funding institutions for existing.

Patients choose and register with a family doctor, and that doctor's practice is paid per registered patient. Specified services are guaranteed and paid for centrally.

This was resisted heavily, because it made explicit which facilities were not delivering enough care to justify their funding, and because it threatened the informal payment economy that a great many people depended on.

How the system performed under pressure

Oxygen supply was the binding constraint rather than beds, which is a direct consequence of a system that had counted beds and not invested in the infrastructure that makes a bed useful.

Intensive care capacity — trained staff, ventilators, piped oxygen — was far scarcer than the raw bed count suggested. Rural district hospitals in particular had beds and very little else.

Vaccine rollout was slow, constrained by procurement capacity and by low public confidence, the latter reflecting a longer-running trust deficit in state institutions.

The commercial dimension

Private health provision expanded substantially through this period, and the pandemic accelerated it. Private clinics, diagnostic laboratories and pharmacy chains grew, and private health insurance became a standard element of employment packages in the sectors competing for skilled staff.

The pharmaceutical market is large, largely generic, and price-sensitive. Medical equipment demand is real and constrained by public procurement budgets, though donor-funded equipment purchases have become a significant channel.

What the episode showed

The lesson generalises beyond health. A system can be well provided with the resource that is easy to count and badly provided with the capability that actually produces the outcome.

Bed counts, kilometres of road, installed generating capacity, university enrolment numbers — every one of these can look adequate while the thing they are supposed to deliver does not happen. Ukraine's health system was the clearest example, and the reform that addressed it worked precisely because it stopped paying for the countable input and started paying for the delivered service.

Related in this archive

• Inbound tourism after visa liberalisation: what changed and what did not
• The restaurant scene and what it says about the consumer market
• Kharkiv: the second city, and what it was built for
• Ukraine Annual Review 2021: the best export year and the last normal one

More beds and worse outcomes shows that capacity and capability are not the same thing — as in industry, where a large machine park can go with low output. What decides is not the bed but the trained person beside it and the supply chain behind it. The commercial dimension was this: the health system determined whether my staff could come to work.