Highlights During pandemic the overall resilience of the Finnish society has been comparatively high. Decentralized public health functions have made it possible to engage in active public health actions at local level Pandemic has possibly accelerated the development of digital health services and telemedicine in various part of the Finnish healthcare system COVID-19 will have far-reaching systemic effects on the entire society.

BackgroundWhat is common to many healthcare systems is a discussion about the optimal balance between public and private provision. This paper provides a scoping review of research comparing the performance of public and private hospitals in Europe. The purpose is to summarize and compare research findings and to generate questions for further studies.MethodsThe review was based on a methodological approach inspired by the British EPPI-Centre’s methodology. This review was broader than review methodologies used by Cochrane and Campbell and included a wider range of methodological designs. The literature search was performed using PubMed, EconLit and Web of Science databases. The search was limited to papers published from 2006 to 2016. The initial searches resulted in 480 studies. The final sample was 24 papers. Of those, 17 discussed economic effects, and seven studies addressed quality.ResultsOur review of the 17 studies representing more than 5500 hospitals across Europe showed that public hospitals are most frequently reported as having the best economic performance compared to private not-for-profit (PNFP) and private for-profit (PFP) hospitals. PNFP hospitals are second, while PFP hospitals are least frequently reported as superior. However, a sizeable number of studies did not find significant differences. In terms of quality, the results are mixed, and it is not possible to draw clear conclusions about the superiority of an ownership type. A few studies analyzed patient selection. They indicated that public hospitals tend to treat patients who are slightly older and have lower socioeconomic status, riskier lifestyles and higher levels of co-morbidity and complications than patients treated in private hospitals.ConclusionsThe paper points to shortcomings in the available studies and argues that future studies are needed to investigate the relationship between contextual circumstances and performance. A big weakness in many studies addressing economic effects is the failure to control for quality and other operational dimensions, which may have influenced the results. This weakness should also be addressed in future comparative studies.

The purchaser-provider split (PPS) is a service delivery model in which third-party payers are kept organizationally separate from service providers. The operations of the providers are managed by contracts. One of the main aims of PPS is to create competition between providers. Competition and other incentive structures built into the contractual relationship are believed to lead to improvements in service delivery, such as improved cost containment, greater efficiency, organizational flexibility, better quality and improved responsiveness of services to patient needs. PPS was launched in Finland in the early 1990s but was not widely implemented until the early 2000s. Compared to other countries with PPS the development and implementation of PPS in Finland has been unusual. Firstly, purchasing is implemented at the level of municipalities, which means that the size of the Finnish purchasers is extremely small. Elsewhere purchasing is mostly implemented at the regional or national levels. Secondly, PPS is also applied to primary health care and A&E services while in other countries the services mainly include specialized health care and residential care for the elderly. Thirdly, PPS in health and social services is not regulated by any specific legislation, regulative mechanisms or guidelines. Instead it is regulated within the same framework as public procurement in general.

Purpose Integrated care policies have been at the heart of recent health reforms in many European countries. The purpose of this paper is to study the integration from the perspective of health care personnel working in primary health care clinics. Design/methodology/approach The study employs data from interviews collected in a research project examining patient choice and integrated care in primary health care clinics in Finland. The interviews were conducted in five cities in Southern Finland in 17 primary health care clinics in Autumn 2014. Among the interviewees there were both doctors (n=32) and nurses (n=31). Findings The typical problems hindering integration were, according to the workers, poor communication and insufficient information exchange between professionals, unclear definition of responsibilities between professionals, and lacking contacts and information exchange between health and social care professionals. To secure availability and continuity of care, doctors and nurses did extra work and exceeded their duties or invented ad hoc solutions to solve the problem at hand. According to professionals, patients were forced to take an active role as coordinator of their own care when responsibilities were not clearly defined between professionals. Originality/value This paper highlights that successful integration requires taking into account the requirements of the day-to-day work of health care clinics, and clarifying what facilitates and what hinders practical collaboration between different actors in health care and between health care and other service providers.

"Putting the patient in the driver's seat" is one of the top issues on the health policy agenda in Finland. One of the means believed to promote patient empowerment and patient centeredness is the introduction and further expansion of choice policies with accompanying competition between public and private service providers. However, the Finnish health care system has a highly decentralized administration with multiple funding sources and three different types of providers that people can seek primary care from (municipal health centers, occupational health care services, and private sector providers). This complicates the implementation of choice at the level of primary health care. In this paper, we describe the current policy debates and initiatives promoting the expansion of the choice of primary care provider in Finland. We examine the legislation and policies that have contributed to the current, complex service system in Finland. In light of this examination, we critically discuss the current debate on choice policies as well as the introduction of choice in the context of primary health care.