Giuseppe Sorrentino

This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the SDG in healthcare achievement in Austria and Ukraine and to determine possible lessons for Ukraine based on best EU and world experiences. To identify existing challenges and perspectives a comparative analysis of key indicators of healthcare expenditures and health financing systems in Austria and Ukraine was carried out. Results indicate that in Ukraine there is a substantial lack of public funding for healthcare (only 682 US dollars per capita in 2018), a poor share of voluntary health insurance (less than 1%), significant amounts (on average 50%) of expenditures of the population in general spending on health. On the contrary, in Austria, there is sufficient public funding for healthcare (5,879 US dollars per capita in 2018), more than 5% share of voluntary health insurance, moderate amounts (on average 25%) of expenditures of the population in general spending on health. Austria’s experience as an EU-member country with a successful example of a financing strategy for the healthcare system is a sound example for Ukraine. The alternative financing tools (e.g. result-based financing, impact investment, public-private partnership) can be used as an additional financing mechanism of healthcare funding in Ukraine. The use of these instruments along with the improvement of the fiscal policy, social security, and governance based on Austrian experience can cut the existing financing gap to achieve SDG targets in healthcare in Ukraine.

Acknowledgment
This study is financed equally by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine.

2020 revealed the vulnerability of the healthcare systems in most countries. It also highlighted their failure to generate serious progress in the fulfillment of Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3): Ensure healthy lives and promote welfare for all at all ages. One of the key problems inhibiting its progress is the lack of financial resources. Based on a comprehensive meta-analysis of the literature related to SDG 3 and its investment, it aims to demonstrate that lack of appropriate academic support is a part of the failure to generate serious progress in the fulfillment of SDG 3. To do this academic literature published in the period 2010–2019 is analyzed. SciVal Elsevier, VosViewer, and Google Trends tools are applied for analysis. The results show that there is a significant interest in the academic circles on SDG 3 alone. However, this interest is concentrated toward its medical aspects while economic aspects, including investment, are poorly represented. This study shows that the reason for the current investment gap in SDG 3 is the lack of academic support to provide a theoretical, methodological, and analytical framework for tackling the financing problem for SDG 3.