"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.

The Finnish primary care patients value choice, but they are critical of the availability of choice-relevant information. Choices of patients with complex health care needs should be supported by developing integrated care alternatives and by increasing the availability of information on existing care alternatives to meet their needs.

As taxation is one of the key public policy domains influencing population health, and as there is a legal, strategic, and programmatic basis for health impact assessment (HIA) in Finland, we analyzed all 235 government bills on tax legislation over the years 2007–2014 to see whether the health impacts of the tax bills had been assessed. We found that health impacts had been assessed for 13 bills, bills dealing with tobacco, alcohol, confectionery, and energy legislation and that four of these impact assessments included impacts on health inequalities between social classes. Based on our theoretical classification, the health impacts of 40 other tax bills should have been evaluated.

No abstract