Objective Global population aging presents significant economic and social challenges, requiring coordinated efforts to enhance healthy lifespans. However, little is known about how stakeholders prioritize healthy aging initiatives. We aimed to examine how a sample of stakeholders prioritize determinants of healthy aging, and what gaps or inconsistencies exist in stakeholder focus on these determinants? Methods We conducted a first systematic analysis of the value propositions of 56 stakeholders, including governments, companies, research centers, opinion leaders, communities, and multilateral organizations, identified through Web of Science, PitchBook, and Crunchbase. Guided by the National Academy of Medicine's All-of-Society framework, we assessed stakeholder emphasis on four determinants of healthy aging: public health systems, social factors, physical infrastructure, and work and education. Results Public health system reform emerged as the most emphasized determinant, with significant focus on investing in geroscience and developing tailored primary care for older adults. In contrast, critical social and infrastructural factors-such as digital literacy, housing, transportation, financial security, and loneliness-received limited attention among stakeholders. Conclusions These findings highlight the need for cross-sector partnerships to address these overlooked determinants and ensure a holistic approach to healthy aging. Future research should explore collaborative strategies to bridge these gaps to meet the diverse needs of aging populations. Highlights-The study systematically examines 56 stakeholders, highlighting the need for cross-sector partnerships to address neglected areas and adopt a holistic healthy aging approach.-Identified stakeholders prioritize public health reform, focusing on geroscience and tailored primary care for older adults.-Key social and infrastructural factors like loneliness, financial security, and housing are largely overlooked.

In gegenwärtigen Debatten der kritischen Phänomenologie stellt sich mituner die Frage, in welcher Weise Subjekte in die Reproduktion rassistischer Strukturen verstrickt sind, und wie aus dieser Verstrickung Bedingungen gefunden werden können, die einen kritischen Umgang mit diesen Strukturen ermög-licht. Der Vortrag zeigt auf, wie zwischen Merleau-Pontys Denken der «Institution» und Michael Rothbergs «Implicated Subject» eine produktive Verbindung gemacht werden kann, um zu demonstrieren, wie Subjekte diesseits der Täter-Opfer Alternative in die Fortführung rassistischer Gesellschaftsstrukturen verwickelt sind. Während Rothbergs Begriff des implicated subjects hilft eine kritisch-theoretische Perspektive auf den Reproduktionscharakter struktureller Gewalt zu werfen, kann Merleau-Pontys Denken der Institution genutzt werden, um die grundlegende Verstrickung des Subjekts in seiner soziohistorischen Situation zu denken. Der Anspruch des Vortrags besteht darin, dass beide Theorien eine passende Ergänzung darstellen, um die vieldiskutierte Situiertheit von Subjekten in einem gesellschafskritischen Blick zu untersuchen.

Payment mechanisms are important factors for the use and diffusion of technological innovation. Nevertheless, there is a lack of knowledge and empirical evidence about the payment instruments and mechanisms used for technological innovation in the inpatient sector across European health care systems. Given this background, this articles discusses the relationships between DRG-based payment systems and technological innovation. Moreover, it analyses available short-term payment instruments for technological innovation and their application across eleven European countries. The article also scrutinizes how technological innovations are integrated into DRG-based payment systems in the long run. We fi nd that long term mechanisms differ with respect to i) the frequency of system updates, and ii) the time-lag to the data used for these updates. Our analysis suggests that one can differentiate between different kinds of short-term payment instruments: on the one hand some countries apply separate payments outside the core scope of DRG-based payment systems. On the other hand countries provide additional payments and cost-outlier funding that operates within the framework or at the margin of DRG-based payment systems. Overall, our analysis suggests that payment approaches in the context of DRG-based pay-ment systems differ substantially across European health care systems. German as well as other European policy makers should pay more attention to the diversity of payment approaches across European health care systems to inform their policy making.