Suchergebnisse

In several European countries, including Norway, polices to increase patient choice of hospital provider have remained high on the political agenda. The main reason behind the interest in hospital choice reforms in Norway has been the belief that increasing choice can remedy the persistent problem of long waiting times for elective hospital care. Prior to the 2013 General Election, the Conservative Party campaigned in favour of a new choice reform: "the treatment choice reform". This article describes the background and process leading up to introduction of the reform in the autumn of 2015. It also provides a description of the content and discusses possible implications of the reform for patients, providers and government bodies. In sum, the reform contains elements of both continuity and change. The main novelty of the reform lies in the increased role of private for-profit healthcare providers.

This paper explores and compares health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the context of existing governance features. Content compiled in the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor combined with other publicly available country information serve as the foundation for this analysis. The analysis mainly covers early response until August 2020, but includes some key policy and epidemiological developments up until December 2020. Our findings suggest that despite the many similarities in adopted policy measures, the five countries display differences in implementation as well as outcomes. Declaration of state of emergency has differed in the Nordic region, whereas the emphasis on specialist advisory agencies in the decision-making process is a common feature. There may be differences in how respective populations complied with the recommended measures, and we suggest that other structural and circumstantial factors may have an important role in variations in outcomes across the Nordic countries. The high incidence rates among migrant populations and temporary migrant workers, as well as differences in working conditions are important factors to explore further. An important question for future research is how the COVID-19 epidemic will influence legislation and key principles of governance in the Nordic countries.

This paper explores and compares health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the context of existing governance features. Content compiled in the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor combined with other publicly available country information serve as the foundation for this analysis. The analysis mainly covers early response until August 2020, but includes some key policy and epidemiological developments up until December 2020. Our findings suggest that despite the many similarities in adopted policy measures, the five countries display differences in implementation as well as outcomes. Declaration of state of emergency has differed in the Nordic region, whereas the emphasis on specialist advisory agencies in the decision-making process is a common feature. There may be differences in how respective populations complied with the recommended measures, and we suggest that other structural and circumstantial factors may have an important role in variations in outcomes across the Nordic countries. The high incidence rates among migrant populations and temporary migrant workers, as well as differences in working conditions are important factors to explore further. An important question for future research is how the COVID-19 epidemic will influence legislation and key principles of governance in the Nordic countries. ; publishedVersion ; Peer reviewed

This paper explores and compares health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the context of existing governance features. Content compiled in the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor combined with other publicly available country information serve as the foundation for this analysis. The analysis mainly covers early response until August 2020, but includes some key policy and epidemiological developments up until December 2020. Our findings suggest that despite the many similarities in adopted policy measures, the five countries display differences in implementation as well as outcomes. Declaration of state of emergency has differed in the Nordic region, whereas the emphasis on specialist advisory agencies in the decision-making process is a common feature. There may be differences in how respective populations complied with the recommended measures, and we suggest that other structural and circumstantial factors may have an important role in variations in outcomes across the Nordic countries. The high incidence rates among migrant populations and temporary migrant workers, as well as differences in working conditions are important factors to explore further. An important question for future research is how the COVID-19 epidemic will influence legislation and key principles of governance in the Nordic countries.

Introduction: Long-term care (LTC) is organized in a fragmented manner. Payer agencies (PA) receive LTC funds from the agency collecting funds, and commission services. Yet, distributional equity (DE) across PAs, a precondition to geographical equity of access to LTC, has received limited attention. We conceptualize that LTC systems promote DE when they are designed to set eligibility criteria nationally (vs. locally); and to distribute funds among PAs based on needs-formula (vs. past-budgets or government decisions). Objectives: This cross-country study highlights to what extent different LTC systems are designed to promote DE across PAs, and the parameters used in allocation formulae. Methods: Qualitative data were collected through a questionnaire filled by experts from 17 OECD countries. Results: 11 out of 25 LTC systems analyzed, fully meet DE as we defined. 5 systems which give high autonomy to PAs have designs with low levels of DE; while nine systems partially promote DE. Allocation formulae vary in their complexity as some systems use simple demographic parameters while others apply socio-economic status, disability, and LTC cost variations. Discussion and conclusions: A minority of LTC systems fully meet DE, which is only one of the criteria in allocation of LTC resources. Some systems prefer local priority-setting and governance over DE. Countries that value DE should harmonize the eligibility criteria at the national level and allocate funds according to needs across regions.

Introduction: Long-term care (LTC) is organized in a fragmented manner. Payer agencies (PA) receive LTC funds from the agency collecting funds, and commission services. Yet, distributional equity (DE) across PAs, a precondition to geographical equity of access to LTC, has received limited attention. We conceptualize that LTC systems promote DE when they are designed to set eligibility criteria nationally (vs. locally); and to distribute funds among PAs based on needs-formula (vs. past-budgets or government decisions). Objectives: This cross-country study highlights to what extent different LTC systems are designed to promote DE across PAs, and the parameters used in allocation formulae. Methods: Qualitative data were collected through a questionnaire filled by experts from 17 OECD countries. Results: 11 out of 25 LTC systems analyzed, fully meet DE as we defined. 5 systems which give high autonomy to PAs have designs with low levels of DE; while nine systems partially promote DE. Allocation formulae vary in their complexity as some systems use simple demographic parameters while others apply socio-economic status, disability, and LTC cost variations. Discussion and conclusions: A minority of LTC systems fully meet DE, which is only one of the criteria in allocation of LTC resources. Some systems prefer local priority-setting and governance over DE. Countries that value DE should harmonize the eligibility criteria at the national level and allocate funds according to needs across regions.