Nordic responses to Covid-19: Governance and policy measures in the early phases of the pandemic.

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.

Achieving higher performing primary care through patient registration: A review of twelve high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Patient registration with a primary care providers supports continuity in the patient-provider relationship. This paper develops a framework for analysing the characteristics of patient registration across countries; applies this framework to a selection of countries; and identifies challenges and ongoing reform efforts. METHODS: 12 jurisdictions (Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Ontario [Canada], Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom) were selected for analysis. Information was collected by national researchers who reviewed relevant literature and policy documents to report on the establishment and evolution of patient registration, the requirements and benefits for patients, providers and payers, and its connection to primary care reforms. RESULTS: Patient registration emerged as part of major macro-level health reforms linked to the introduction of universal health coverage. Recent reforms introduced registration with the aim of improving quality through better coordination and efficiency through reductions in unnecessary referrals. Patient registration is mandatory only in three countries. Several countries achieve high levels of registration by using strong incentives for patients and physicians (capitation payments). CONCLUSION: Patient registration means different things in different countries and policy-makers and researchers need to take into consideration: the history and characteristics of the registration system; the use of incentives for patients and providers; and the potential for more explicit use of patient-provider agreements as a policy to achieve more timely, appropriate, continuous and integrated care.

Norway: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Norwegian health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. Norway is among the wealthiest nations in the world, with low levels of income inequality. Norwegians enjoy long and healthy lives, with substantial improvement made due to effective and high-quality medical care and the impact of broader public health policies. However, this comes at a high cost, as the Norwegian health system is among the most expensive in Europe, with most financing coming from public funds. Yet there are several areas requiring substantial co-payments, such as adult dental care, outpatient pharmaceuticals, and institutional care for older or disabled people. Recent and ongoing reforms have focused on aligning provision of care to changing population health needs, including adapting medical education, strengthening primary care and improving coordination between primary and specialist care sectors. There has been an increasing use of e-health solutions, and information and communication technologies. Improvements in measuring performance and a more effective use of indicators is expected to play a larger role in informing policy and planning of health services.

Mapping variability in allocation of Long-Term Care funds across payer agencies in OECD 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.

The 2015 hospital treatment choice reform in Norway: Continuity or change?

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.

Public reporting on quality, waiting times and patient experience in 11 high-income countries.

This article maps current approaches to public reporting on waiting times, patient experience and aggregate measures of quality and safety in 11 high-income countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States). Using a questionnaire-based survey of key national informants, we found that the data most commonly made available to the public are on waiting times for hospital treatment, being reported for major hospitals in seven countries. Information on patient experience at hospital level is also made available in many countries, but it is not generally available in respect of primary care services. Only one of the 11 countries (England) publishes composite measures of overall quality and safety of care that allow the ranking of providers of hospital care. Similarly, the publication of information on outcomes of individual physicians remains rare. We conclude that public reporting of aggregate measures of quality and safety, as well as of outcomes of individual physicians, remain relatively uncommon. This is likely to be due to both unresolved methodological and ethical problems and concerns that public reporting may lead to unintended consequences.

The Psychiatric Out-Patient Experiences Questionnaire (POPEQ): data quality, reliability and validity in patients attending 90 Norwegian clinics.

The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the Psychiatric Out-Patient Experiences Questionnaire (POPEQ). The instrument was developed following a literature review, patient interviews and pre-testing of questionnaire items. The POPEQ was administered as part of a postal survey of 15,422 adult outpatients attending Norwegian clinics; 6677 (43.3%) patients responded to the questionnaire. Items had low levels of missing data. Factor analysis showed that 11 widely applicable items contribute to a measure of overall experiences. Sub-dimensions include clinician interaction (six items) information (two items) and outcomes (three items). Item-total correlations ranged from 0.5 to 0.8. Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability estimates exceeded the criterion of 0.7; the majority were over 0.8 and total scores over 0.9. Construct validity was supported by the results of 128 tests. The POPEQ includes important aspects of patient experience for psychiatric outpatients and has excellent evidence for reliability and construct validity. The instrument is recommended for the measurement of psychiatric outpatient experiences.