The Paradox of Greek Health: From Global Downfall to Crisis and its Lessons  

Select Language:

Deutsch Français Italiano Español Nederlands Polski Svenska English Ελληνικά

Introduction  

Before the economic crisis of 2009, the Greek health system presented an intriguing paradox. According to an assessment by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000, Greece’s health system ranked 14th in the world, showing such positive outcomes as high life expectancy [2, 3]. However, this seemingly strong position masked underlying structural weaknesses that were brutally exposed when the debt crisis hit the country. How did a system that theoretically provided such high returns collapse under the weight of austerity, leaving millions of citizens exposed? The answer is not simply that austerity revealed pre-existing pathologies, but that the very nature of these pathologies—a heavily indebted financial mechanism and a weak state capacity—acted as an amplifier of the shock, creating a vicious circle that quickly undermined the resilience of the system more than elsewhere [1, 4].

This paper aims to analyze this trajectory, from the pre-crisis period to the current realities. We will examine the character of the system that made it uniquely vulnerable, evaluate the human and institutional responses to austerity measures, and assess the resulting reform efforts undertaken under pressure from the Memoranda. Following a chronological path, this paper hopes to answer important questions about the nature, resilience, justice and future of health governance in Greece, offering insights that transcend national borders.

Image : Greek Public Hospitals in Crisis+

———————————————————————————————————————

1.0 Pre-Crisis System (Up to 2009): A Tower of Cards;

1.1 The WHO’s Critical Assessment;

To understand why the Greek health system suffered such a severe hit, it is essential to examine its actual state before the crisis. The high ranking the WHO gave in 2000, valuable as it may be, was misleading, as it hid the deep pathologies that would lead to the system’s eventual collapse.

The 2000 WHO methodology drew criticism because, while it greatly relies on indicators such as life expectancy, it overlooked critical differences like access equality and the system’s responsiveness [3]. This approach favoured areas with good results in terms of population, but failed to portray inequalities and inherent inefficiencies plaguing the Greek system [4, 5]. Despite the high ranking, the system was marked by chronic underfunding, lack of coordination, high private expenses and extensive inequalities in coverage [4, 6]. This fragile balance was maintained during a period of economic prosperity, but was doomed to collapse under the pressure of a fiscal crisis. The hybrid nature of the system—a compromise between Beveridge’s and Bismarck’s principles—resulted in the central architectural weakness that led to its collapse.

1.2 The Hybrid Domain: NHS and Insurance Funds;

The architecture of the Greek health system prior to 2011 was a complex hybrid, combining elements of a national health system (NHS) funded by taxation, with a decentralized social security system based on employment [4]. This co-existence created a dysfunctional, combative environment.

From one side, the National Health System (ESY), which was established in 1983, operated as a single public provider of services. On the other hand, funding and purchase of services were done through about 80 (and later 35) different insurance funds, which were organized by occupational group [4, 5]. This financial labyrinth, known as ‘Balkanized’, created a system of multiple speeds [4]. Each fund had different contributions, benefits and rules, leading to significant inequalities in access and quality of care between the insured [4,6]. The lack of a practical momentum and synchronization led to unnecessary expenses and chronic deficits in hospitals [6].

As an immediate consequence of this dysfunctional landscape, citizens resorted to high private payments (out-of-pocket), which accounted for about 40% of total health expenditure, to fill the gaps in the system [7]. In addition, irregular payments, known as ‘under the table’, became an endemic phenomenon, while patients sought faster access or better treatment [8]. This combination of deficit, inequality and uncontrolled expenses generated the personal strategies for crisis management that would follow with the outbreak of the economic crisis.

———————————————————————————————————————

2.0 The Stock of Austerity (2009-2015): A System in Peril

2.1 The Immediate Consequences and the Human Cost

The response to the economic crisis of 2009 was not just a fiscal adjustment, but a shock wave that directly affected the health and well-being of the population. Austerity programs imposed drastic cuts to public expenditure, with the health system being at the core of austerity. These austerity measures resulted in severe health coverage gaps, with the health system standing at the heart of austerity.

The climate of the cuts was groundbreaking. Between 2009 and 2013, public health spending decreased by 11% annually in real terms [6]. Even more dramatic was the reduction in public pharmaceutical expenditure, which plunged, ejecting Greece from the highest to the lowest ranks in Europe in this sector [9]. The consequences of these policies were immediate and painful for the citizens:

• Uncovered needs: Self-reported unmet medical needs tripled, reaching the highest levels in the EU, with the lowest income groups disproportionately affected [10]. Specifically, the chances of not using health services for economic reasons were 44% higher in 2011 compared to 2006 (Economic crisis, austerity and unmet healthcare needs: the case of Greece – PMC).
• Refuge to NGOs: A large portion of the Greek population, which is estimated to be up to a third, was forced to take refuge in social clinics and NGOs for their needs — structures that mainly serve migrants [11].
• Health indicator deterioration: Infant mortality remained relatively stable [13], but other indicators showed a tragic deterioration. The HIV prevalence rate increased by 32% between 2008 and 2010 [12], while suicide and middle-life mortality rates skyrocketed, with suicide cases rising from 3.3% in 2008 to 12.3% in 2013 [14, 6].

This crisis reveals which parts of the system have collapsed: here the hospital front line (eg perioperative) experienced a wave of operationality, the community pillar of social care and mental health services proved to be scarce, leaving the most vulnerable citizens unprotected against the psychosocial effects of the crisis. The prestige of austerity, however, has not been exhausted in the poor; it struck at the essentials of the system: the human factor of it.

2.2 The Devaluation of the Human Dynamics  

The austerity policy has significantly affected the most valuable of the health system: its people. Cuts in salaries, changes in the pension system and the general increase in working conditions created a desperate environment for doctors, nurses and all staff, with disastrous consequences for the resilience and operation of the ESY [15, 16].

The most sensible consequence was the massive migration of trained personnel abroad, a phenomenon known as ‘brain drain’. It is estimated that during the period 2008-2015, about 427,000 academics, including thousands of doctors and young researchers, left the country looking for better job opportunities and higher wages [17]. This talent hemorrhage had multiple implications:

• Loss of institutional memory: The departure of experienced doctors eroded the collective knowledge and experience of hospitals.
• Exhaustion of education: The escape of experienced doctors cut off the possibilities of guidance and education (mentoring) for newer generations, undermining the future of the system [18].
• Reduction of resilience: Understaffing and the professional exhaustion of the remaining personnel reduced the ability of the system to respond to crises.

In parallel, the education of a new generation of health professionals in an environment of austerity and crises is likely to have shaped a culture of ‘medical necessity’, promoting the quality of thought [17]. In this challenging landscape, significant reforms were undertaken, which changed everything about the structure of the system.

———————————————————————————————————————

3.0 The Era of Reforms: Modernization or More of the Same?

Image : Greek Health Paradox+

3.1 Assessment of Structural Interventions

The reforms implemented during the crisis period had two distinctive features. On the one hand, they were driven by the acute need for fiscal consolidation and cost-cutting. On the other hand, they responded to long-standing demands for systemic modernization and addressing the system’s pathologies. Their evaluation reveals a composite image, where genuine steps forward coexisted with horizontal measures that withdrew the provision of services.

The three most significant interventions were:

1. The creation of the EOPYY: The merger of existing insurance agencies into the National Organization for the Provision of Health Services (EOPYY) in 2012 marked a historic change, creating for the first time a single payer for health services [6, 19]. Theoretically, this offered the potential for coordinated interventions and cost control, moving from a ‘balkanized’ environment of ~35-80 separate entities to a strongly unified monopoly [4, 6].
2. Electronic Prescription (e-prescription): The introduction of a centralized, digital system for the prescription of drugs and diagnostic tests was a significant step towards modernization. It offered the capability to monitor the prescription process in real time, limiting the potential for fraud and misuse [19].
3. Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs): The implementation of a hospital compensation system based on Diagnosis-Related Groups aimed at streamlining hospital costs and increasing efficiency [19].

As such, the implementation of these reforms proved challenging. While e-prescription and EOPYY made genuine steps towards healthcare modernization, their effectiveness was restricted. The operational power of EOPYY as a sole beneficiary did not fully materialize, as strategic decisions continued to be centrally controlled by the Health Ministry, often under the influence of powerful medical lobbies [6]. At the same time, other measures functioned as crisis containment tools: Wage reductions and automatic clawback mechanisms for pharmaceutical businesses and suppliers, though initially provisional, became permanent, turning a control instrument into a permanent system financing mechanism, shifting the burden [20, 21]. Despite these interventions revitalizing primary and pharmaceutical care, they left almost unaffected the system’s greatest weakness.

3.2 The Achilles Heel of Primary Healthcare

Despite all the regulatory measures, the Primary Health Care (PHC) remains the weakest link of the Greek system. The crisis dramatically highlighted the need for a strong PHC system that would act as a definitive ‘gatekeeper’, relieving hospitals and managing chronic diseases. However, the changes that were implemented led to deeply rooted structural and political obstacles.

After 2010, the main efforts focused on the creation of Local Health Units (LOUs) in 2017 and the establishment of the ‘personal doctor’ concept [22, 23]. The aim was to create a network of general practitioners (GPs) who would be responsible for a prescribed number of citizens. The success of these actions was limited for reasons associated with the political economy of the system. The chronic bias towards specialist doctors and the resistance to general practitioners [22] made any reform focusing on GPs politically undesirable, while the established interests of specialists emerged. Besides, specialists had no economic or persuasive incentive to enter the personal doctor system with predetermined quotas [22, 24]. Inertia, Greek patients, traditionally used to direct access to specialist doctors and hospitals, opposed politically, receiving the gatekeeping system as a bureaucratic impediment [25].

Political critiques argued that the transformation of the ‘personal doctor’ was implemented biassedly, without the development of the necessary supports and the assurance of the necessary personnel [26, 25]. This failure is not just a technical weakness, but a fundamental factor that maintains and reproduces health inequalities.

———————————————————————————————————————

4.0 Further Challenges: Inequality, Discontent and Legal Difficulties

4.1 Practicality of the Two Speeds  

The crisis and the policies that followed did not simply burden the health system, but widened and deepened the social and geographical inequalities in access to the front line. In practice, Greece now operates with a two-speed health system, where place of residence and the level of income determine the quality and speed of care.

The experience of a citizen in Athens with a medium income and private insurance is fundamentally different from that of a poor inhabitant on a remote island that is excluded from the public system. For the latter, as also indicated by political critics, reality involves long waiting lists, the necessity to travel to another city for basic examinations and high out-of-pocket expenses [26]. This unequal distribution of burdens is not accidental, but the result of ‘historical trends, political choices and centrally planned bureaucratic decisions’ [27].

Eurostat’s findings reinforce this picture. Greece records one of the largest differences in the European Union regarding unmet medical needs between people living in poverty and the general population. This difference rises to 12.7 percentage points, revealing a deep gap in access that the system fails to bridge [28]. This lived reality of inequality shapes citizens’ perception of the healthcare system.

4.2 The Gap between Expectations and Lived Experience  

The actual effectiveness of a healthcare system is not measured solely by economic indicators, but also by the knowledge and capabilities of the citizens it serves. In Greece, the public mentions about reforms and modernization run counter to the daily hardship of the patients, creating a deep gap of distrust.

Studies of incapacity reveal that if a significant number of disability benefits is justified by experience, there is a significant amount of dissatisfaction. Overall, the cumulative incapacity of patients from hospital care reached 70.2% during 2006-2016 [29, 30]. The fact that almost one third of patients express complications or dissatisfaction reveals a significant gap between the prominent reports about successful reforms and the living experience of citizens. This discrimination reflects the daily difficulties: the great demands, the lack of personal and the sense that the system operates thanks to the personal initiative and not due to organizational logic [27]. This revelation is not just a communication problem, but an indication that reforms have failed to tackle the source of problems troubling citizens.

4.3 The Domains that Remain Unresolved  

The most revealing fact of the last decade is perhaps how little some established features of the pre-crisis system have changed, despite the size of the shock and the intensity of reform pressures. Why, despite the memoranda and the imposed measures, certain basic institutions remain unmovable;

The answer lies in the power of the established legal structures and organized consortia that operate as ‘veto points’, opposing every fundamental change. The basic architectural structures that remained largely unchanged include:

• The power of medical associations: These unions have acted as institutional obstacles to reforms that threatened their autonomy or their members’ incomes, hindering the orthologization of services [6, 31].
• The power of private stakeholders: The sector of private diagnostic centers and clinics holds significant influence in political decisions, shaping an environment that often favors private health care over the expansion of the public sector.
• Political favoritism of patients: The established practice of the ‘free choice’ of a specialized doctor fosters a public resistance that energetically defends the every attempt of creating an effective primary care system with a gatekeeping function, shifting any reform towards a politically toxic substance [31].

The survival of these institutions reveals the limits of state capacity for essential change. It shows that, even under conditions of extreme external pressure, the political and social equilibriums can undermine or extend the reforms [32].

——————————————————————————————————————–

5.0 The Road Ahead: Synthesis of Assumptions and Needs  

5.1 The Paradox of Recovery: Assumptions on Paper, Needs in Practice  

Today, the Greek health system faces a new intense paradox. On the one hand, the macroeconomic indicators show recovery and the plan for 2025, supported by resources from the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), foresees significant investments in areas such as public health and prevention [33]. On the other hand, Eurostat’s data continue to show that Greece has one of the highest rates of unmet medical needs in the EU, especially for her poorest citizens [28].

How can this striking opposition between economic recovery and persistent health deprivation be reconciled? The potential explanations are multiple and not mutually exclusive:

• Chronic delay (Time lag): There may be a significant delay until the predicted increases translate into improvements in services, especially after a decade of disinvestment.
• Poor allocation of resources: Resources may not be directed where the needs are greater. Persistent underfunding of the public health sector compared to hospitals is a classic example of this inequality [34].
• Permanent damage (Lasting damage): The system may have suffered so deep damages in its structure and human dynamics (brain drain) that simple cash inflow may not be sufficient to restore its operational capacity.

Managing these challenges requires a strategic capability that goes beyond the simple fulfillment of predictions and places state’ ability to plan and develop long-term policies at the center.

5.2 State Capability and European Pressure  

A critical question for the future is how much the Greek state has developed real strategic planning capacity or simply followed the demands posed by European institutions. Greece’s relationship with Europe in the health sector has evolved, moving from crisis management under the strict surveillance of the memoranda to the management of resources of the Recovery Fund [35, 36].

The challenge remains: has this transition actually strengthened the real administrative and political capacity or has it created a mechanism that mainly establishes compliance with external impositions, without creating strong and autonomous mechanisms of absorption; The experience of previous programs has shown that the lack of administrative capacity was a major factor in the failure of many reforms [37]. Supervision of governance and problem resolution problems suggests that either externally driven reform has its limits, either the internal political will to break with old pathogenies remains unable [32].

———————————————————————————————————————

6.0 Conclusion: A Greek Drama or a European Initiative;  

The tenth journey of the Greek health system compiles a multi-faceted history of reaction, failure and reform. The results of the present thesis suggest that the recession was not an inadvertent result of the economic crisis, but the violent revelation of pre-existing, deeply ingrained weaknesses. The high ranking of the WHO revealed a system essentially vulnerable, defeated and uneven, which still operated on the edge during periods of prosperity.

Ultimately, does the Greek approach represent a Greek drama or a European prognosis? The answer is both. On the one hand, it reveals the inherent adaptability of the Bismarck–Beveridge welfare systems—those attempting to reconcile the universal, tax-funded provision of a Beveridge model with the corporatist, insurance-based funding of a Bismarck model—when subjected to fiscal pressure in its extreme. Secondly, and most importantly, it unveils how the peculiar objectives of Greek political economics—the consistent underfunding of social security, the strong clientelistic networks, the penetration of private interests and the strong organised stakeholders operating as veto points—acted as multipliers of the crisis [6, 31]. Austerity did not create these problems, but exposed and exacerbated them to a critical degree.

The take-away from Greece is clear and concerning. The resiliency of a health system is not determined by average indicators, but by its ability to protect the most vulnerable in times of crisis. The Greek experience serves as a stark warning for other European countries facing fiscal pressure: failure to address domestic deficiencies in times of relative tranquility can lead to a deep social and economic crisis, the effects of which are observable for many years.

———————————————————————————————————————

7.0 Bibliographic References  

1. Thomas S, Fleming P. RESTORE – Resilience to Reform: Towards Dynamic Resilience in Health System Performance and Reform. 2020.
2. Serapioni M. Economic crisis and inequalities in health systems in the countries of Southern Europe. Sciences. collective health. 2019;24(7).
3. Navarro V. The World Health Report 2000: Can Health Care Systems Be Compared Using a Single Measure of Performance?. Int J Health Services. 2001;31(4):857-66.
4. Exadaktylos T, Zahariadis N, Mavrikou M. The Bifurcated System: Institutional Fragmentation and Perverse Incentives in Greece’s Pre-EOPYY Healthcare Architecture (1983–2011). 2022.
5. Karanikolos M, et al. The impact of the crisis on the health system and health in Greece. In: Health Policy and the Financial Crisis. 2015.
6. Petmesidou M. Challenges to Healthcare Reform in Crisis-Hit Greece. South European Society and Politics. 2019.
7. Yfantopoulos J, et al. Greece – Economy and Finance. European Commission. 2016.
8. Sotiropoulos DA. Greece in Economic Crisis: The Case of Health and Education. EconStor. 2014.
9. Yfantopoulos J. Pharmaceutical Policies under Economic Crisis: The Greek case. JHPOR. 2016.
10. OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Greece: Country Health Profile 2017. State of Health in the EU. 2017.
11. Adam S, Teloni D. Effects of the financial crisis and Troika austerity measures on health and health care access in Greece. Health Policy. 2015.
12. Vlachadis N, Kornarou E. Increase in stillbirths in Greece is linked to the economic crisis. BMJ. 2013;346:f1061.
13. European Commission. Greece – Economy and Finance country profile. 2016.
14. McKee M, et al. Austerity and health: the impact in the UK and Europe. European Journal of Public Health. 2017.
15. Matsaganis M. The Greek health system: a case of resilient stagnation. In: The Impact of the Crisis on Social Policy in Greece. 2014.
16. Fleming P, et al. How international health system austerity responses to the 2008 financial crisis impacted health system and workforce resilience – A realist review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023.
17. Sotiropoulos DA, Huliaras A, Karadag R. Sustainable Governance Indicators 2022: Greece Report. Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2022.
18. Giousmpasoglou, C, et al. Physicians’ brain drain: Investigating the determinants to emigrate through empirical evidence. EconStor. 2021.
19. Yfantopoulos J. Reforms in Health Policy during the Greek Bailout. GreeSE Papers. 2020.
20. Kanavos P, et al. Pharma Policy in Greece. LSE. 2025.
21. Nikitas V, Vasilopoulou V. Public Administration Reforms in Greece during the Economic Adjustment Programmes. European Commission. 2022.
22. Sotiropoulos, D.A. Greece Report. Sustainable Governance Indicators 2022.
23. Volt Europa. A Volt Perspective: Why You’re Right To Be Displeased. 2024.
24. Exadaktylos T, Zahariadis N, Mavrikou M. Reforms in Health Policy during the Greek Bailout: What Makes Reform Successful and Why?. Hellenic Observatory Research Calls Programme. 2022.
25. Exadaktylos, T., Zahariadis, N., & Mavrikou, M. Reforms in Health Policy during the Greek Bailout. LSE Hellenic Observatory. 2022.
26. Volt Europa. A Volt Perspective: Why You’re Right To Be Displeased. 2024.
27. Souliotis K, et al. Barriers and facilitating factors in access to health services in Greece. WHO. 2015.
28. Eurostat. 3.6% experience unmet needs for medical care in 2024. News articles. 2024.
29. Tsiotras G, et al. Does the patient perception of service quality differ in the recession period? Evidence from Greek hospital care. Int J Qual Serv Sci. 2018.
30. Kaitelidou D, et al. Valuing Outpatients’ Perspective on Primary Health Care Services in Greece: A Cross-Sectional Survey on Satisfaction and Personal-Centered Care. PMC – NIH. 2020.
31. Featherstone K. The political dynamics of the Greek crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies. 2015.
32. Ladi S. Eurozone crisis and its impact upon Greek public administration. Comparative European Politics. 2013.
33. Ministry of National Economy and Finance. Draft Budgetary Plan 2025. 2024.
34. Kyriopoulos J, et al. Health inequalities under decentralized governance: challenges in resource allocation and funding in Greece. Frontiers in Public Health. 2024.
35. Featherstone K, et al. Recovery, resilience and growth regimes under overlapping EU conditionalities: the case of Greece. Comparative European Politics. 2022.
36. European Commission. Analysis of the recovery and resilience plan of Greece. SWD(2023) 383 final. 2023.
37. European Commission. Public Administration Reforms in Greece during the Economic Adjustment Programmes. 2022.