From years Italy is coping with a sneaking devolution of public health services: diminishing funding of them by national and regional governments, frequently no turnover of the personnel and subsequent increasing average age of the remaining ones, emphasis and boosts towards private insurances for safety and health.
Following years of depression of the national economy too, increasing amounts of the Italian population quit caring and curing themselves, being no more in condition to gain access to essential diagnostics and therapeutics.
Note that insurance companies ask high premiums to high-risk individuals (e.g. because they smoke tobacco and / or were exposed to carcinogens during their work) and the lower-levels groups of the society couldn't be able to pay for a private covering.
I think that a sort a Beveridge Plan fitted for our century is necessary all over the world, substained by international organisations.
talking about Italy, in my humble opinion, one of the major problem is linked with regional regulations that are different from one to another. In particular in Italy regional governments my act in health law almost freely and the regulations are quite always different and sometimes contrasting. Here same example in the field of indoor environment:
Thanks to Lorenzo Capasso for his contribution to the comprehension of the effects of devolution relating to heterogeneity of regional approaches, when an authoritative central leadership is weak or missing.
The result of such a condition in Italy is the enlargment of the gap between rich and poor areas of the country and between regions where the public welfare is assumed as a mainstay and the ones where private clinics and insurances give a major quote of the assistance.
Italian scenarios are multicoloured relating to prevention too: different rules (e.g. about hygienic standards, as Lorenzo underlined), differences in vaccination rates and subsequent coverings against several infective diseases, difference in public governance of occupational risks and so on.
I think that information from European States with longer unitary history and stronger unitary tradition, e.g. France, and from Federal States, like Germany, could be very useful to you.
unfortunately the situation is like you described: gaps enlarged in time in different fields, also in terms of health. You said that probably the central leadership is responsible for that inhomogeneous condition, and that is possibly true, but I think that also the kind of federalism has a part of the fault. the structure of sanitary prevention in Italy was based on a strong presence on the territory thanks to Medical Officers in all the municipalities and at provincial level with Public Health authorities and labs supporting their work and only in the end the central level with General Direction of Health and after the Superior Institute of Health (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277664296_Historical_evolution_of_sanitary_prevention_in_Italy_after_national_unification).
In my opinion this structure work in a much more decentralized way than actual regional structure. That may be true also in other fields of health (healthcare), or even in different fields (administration), that is way we argued the abolition of provinces (in an upcoming work), that furthermore were less expensive than regions.
Article [Historical evolution of sanitary prevention in Italy after ...
The challenge for Kenya's devolution process is that education and training must be available BEFORE transferring responsibilities to the county governments. Which experience and knowledge, the transfer of authority and funds to the local governments runs the risk of failure and chaos. Leadership, Management, and Governance training is being offered to local governments from HeSMA in Kenya and NSU in the United States via online certification programs. Mark Tozzio, M-IHHS, FACHE, Adjunct Instructor, NSU 918-521-7468.