ERASMUS+ KA2 PROJECT: Enhancement of study programs in Public Health Law, Health

1. ERASMUS+ KA2 PROJECT: Enhancement of study programs in Public Health Law, Health Management, Health Economics and Health Informatics in Montenegro 3rd Coordination meeting- DAY I 27-29th June, Germany Project web site: www.ph-elim.net

2. WP1- ACTIVITIES 1.1 and 1.2 OVERVIEW 3rd Coordination meeting- DAY I 27-29th June, Germany Project web site: www.ph-elim.net .

3. ACTIVITY 1.1-Analysis of EU practice for public health • Already available at project web site: http://ph-elim.net/activities/wp1/ • Introduction • Definitions • Historical Aspects • 2. Relevant Organizations and Institutions • International Institutional Response • Regional Organizations • National Organizations • 3. International Public Health Strategies, Best Practices, and Frameworks • EU practices Project web site: www.ph-elim.net

4. Public Health of EU Countries • Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus ; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; • Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxemburg; Malta; Netherlands; • Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; United Kingdom • Public Health Best Practices of other Countries • Australia; Canada; Japan; USA • IN TOTAL: 32 countries

5. CONCLUSIONS: • EU practices in public health are regulated through the authorities of the European Commission with close collaboration with the twenty eight ministries of health of the member states. • Recent developments in the EU strategies require: • evidence based process to be applied in old decision making procedures in health care; • taking in to account stakeholders views and options in developing the public health strategies; • the application of eHealth is becoming a requirement in the functionality of health care to achieve public health quality standards; • The EU has issued and implemented the health 2020 policy and proposed for common areas for policy action: empowering people, tackling major diseases strengthening people-centered health system creating supporting communities. • Health technology assessment and quality assurance mechanism are critically important for health system transparency and accountability.

6. Conclusions based on provided comparison of public health status across member states: • All EU member states follow the regulations of the international health organizations and the European Commission recommendations on public health. • The healthcare systems may differ across the EU but they follow the same scope and objectives. • The legislation is harmonized across the various levels of regional and state implementation of healthcare. • The challenges in public issues are similar across Europe: • The ageing of population is one critical factor but other issues affect recently the public especially across the periphery of EU, such as immigration and poverty due to the recent economic crisis. • The European Commission and the related Member States are trying to tackle these issues but it seems that more coordinated effort is required not only in actions but also in economic support. • Since the periphery, and not only, of the EU is suffering by both economic crisis and immigration the public status of those countries affected may jeopardize the whole European public status, since public health issues can easily cross borders.

7. eHEALTH IMPLEMENTATION: • The application of eHealth in the healthcare system will affect in a very positive way the management and administration of the healthcare services across Europe, hence, as a consequence will improve the public health status in the long run. • By increasing the accountability eHealth will minimize the health related costs as it was evident in the member states wherever e-prescription was applied. • eHealth applications provide the tools and the means to survey the diseases across the continent and alert the health when increase of frequency of incidents arises. • Prevention may found in eHealth a powerful assistant to empower the healthcare professionals, educate the citizens and assist the public health authorities to meet its objectives. • Regarding the mobility of citizens across the Member States the application of eHealth and the European Community legislation minimizes risks on public health as public health promotion and awareness of public issues are much easier understood, disseminated, and implemented.

8. The European Union has reached a level of understanding of the public health issues by exchanging information and experiences of best practices among the member states. • New candidate countries may well take advantage of these accumulated experiences of the EU member states as described in this report and by avoiding the any mistakes of the past at those countries look at the future in public health in their own countries complementing their activities by taking up the best practices in European Union, when they wish to: • apply new legislation, • improve healthcare management and health economics, • eHealth becomes the means for improving the quality of public for the benefit of the citizens.

9. SUGGESTIONS HOW TO PRESENT THESE CONCLUSION IN TABLE AND CROSS-MATCHED IN WITH EXISITNG SITUATION IN MONTENEGRO:

11. WP1- ACTIVITY 1.2 OVERVIEW 3rd Coordination meeting- DAY I 27-29th June, Germany Project web site: www.ph-elim.net .

12. ACTIVITY 1.1-Analysis of EU practice for public health • Already available at project web site: http://ph-elim.net/activities/wp1/ • Please, chech list of authors in the document! • Introduction • Definitions • Historical Aspects • 2. Educational Systems • University Education • Continuing and Life-long Learning • Professional Education and Certification • 3. International Public Health Strategies, Best Practices, and Frameworks Project web site: www.ph-elim.net

13. Public Health Eductaion in EU Countries • Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; • Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxemburg; Malta; Netherlands; • Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; United Kingdom • Public Health Education Best Practices of other Countries • Australia; Canada; Japan; USA • IN TOTAL: 32 countries

14. Health education forms an important part of the health promotion activities currently occurring in different countries, and that is a reason why several organizations highlights objectives related to educational approaches within their strategies. • Strategic objectives related to public health education are the following: (a) Improving quality of academic programmes and continuing professional development (CPD) for public health; (b) Setting up a public health profession for public health services in Europe; (c) Developing the global dimension of education and training for public health. (d) Develop tools for individual career and systems human capacity planning based on the relationship between population health challenges, essential public health operations (EPHOs), and competences. (e) Develop European lists of public health core competences for all categories of public health workforce and for all educational and training levels. (f) Support the shaping of a professional identity and culture in schools of public health and national associations of public health

15. From the overview of the countries description on education in Public Health we have seen that the Schools of public health offer a variety of degrees which generally fall into two categories: • professional or • academic. • The two major postgraduate degrees are the Master of Public Health (M.P.H.) or the Master of Science in Public Health (MSPH). • Doctoral studies in this field include Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in a subspeciality of greater Public Health disciplines. DrPH is regarded as a professional degree and Ph.D. as more of an academic degree in certain countries.

16. The most popular in EU countries is to educate public health through the development of Master’s programs in Public Health! • Suggestions for Montenegro: • The priority should be to develop a Master’s programme in Public Health and the curriculum should include among the modules/courses: • health sciences, • health promotion, • health prevention, • infectious and non-infectious diseases, • chronic diseases, • epidemiology, • biostatistics, • healthcare management, health economics, • technology assessment, and eHealth (or health informatics).

17. Suggestion for Montenegro: • The duration should be conforming with the European standards of European Credit Transfer System (90 to 120 ECTS), practice or placement is recommended, and finally the writing up of the dissertation should be mandatory. • The selection criteria of the applicants should be transparent and ensure objectivity, • the faculty staff should be selected on the principle of academic merit, • the accreditation process should ensure the quality of the programme, • the international dimension of the credentiality of the program should be endorsed by the participation within the ERASMUS + Program.

18. SUGGESTIONS HOW TO PRESENT THESE CONCLUSION IN TABLE AND CROSS-MATCHED IN WITH EXISITNG SITUATION IN MONTENEGRO: