BackgroundLack of resources is often cited as a reason for long waiting times and queues in health services. However, recent research indicates these problems are related to factors such as uncoordinated variation of demand and capacity, planning horizons, and lower capacity than the potential of actual resources.This study aimed to demonstrate that long waiting times and wait lists are not necessarily associated with increasing demand or changes in resources. We report how substantial reductions in waiting times/wait lists across a range of specialties was obtained by improvements of basic problems identified through value-stream mapping and unsophisticated analyses.MethodsIn-depth analyses of current operational processes by value-stream mapping were used to identify bottlenecks and sources of waste. Waiting parameters and measures of demand and resources were assessed monthly from 12 months before the intervention to 6 months after the intervention. The effect of the intervention on reducing waiting time and number of patients waiting were evaluated by a difference-in-differences analysis.ResultsMean waiting time across all clinics was reduced from 162 + 69 days (range 74–312 days) at baseline to 52 + 10 days (range 41–74 days) 6 months after the intervention. The time needed to achieve a waiting time of 65 days varied from 4 to 21 months. The number of new patients waiting was reduced from 15,874 (range 369–2980) to 8922 (range 296–1650), and the number of delayed returning patients was reduced from 18,700 (310–3324) to 5993 (40–1337) (p < 0.01 for all). Improvement in waiting measures paralleled a significant increase in planning horizon.ConclusionsSignificant improvements in accessibility for patients waiting for service may be achieved by applying unsophisticated methods and analyses and without increasing resources. Engagement of clinical management and involvement of front line personnel are important factors for improvement.

The Nordic countries are healthcare systems with tax-based financing and ambitions for universal access to comprehensive services. This implies that distribution of healthcare resources should be based on individual needs, not on the ability to pay. Despite this ideological orientation, significant expansion in voluntary private health insurance (VPHI) contracts has occurred in recent decades. The development and role of VPHIs are different across the Nordic countries. Complementary VPHI plays a significant role in Denmark and in Finland. Supplementary VPHI is prominent in Norway and Sweden. The aim of this paper is to explore drivers behind the developments of the VPHI markets in the Nordic countries. We analyze the developments in terms of the following aspects: the performance of the statutory system (real or perceived), lack of coverage in certain areas of healthcare, governmental interventions or inability to reform the system, policy trends and the general socio-cultural environment, and policy responses to voting behavior or lobbying by certain interest groups. It seems that the early developments in VPHI markets have been an answer to the gaps in the national health systems created by institutional contexts, political decisions, and cultural interpretations on the functioning of the system. However, once the market is created it introduces new dynamics that have less to do with gaps and inflexibilities and more with cultural factors.

The Nordic countries represent an institutional setting with tax-based health care financing and universal access to health care services. Very few health care services are excluded from what are offered within the publically financed health care system. User fees are often non-existing or low and capped. Nevertheless, the markets for voluntary private health insurance (VPHI) have been rapidly expanding. In this paper we describe the development of the market for VPHI in the Nordic countries. We outline similarities and differences and provide discussion of the rationale for the existence of different types of VPHI. Data is collected on the population covered by VPHI, type and scope of coverage, suppliers of VPHI and their relations with health providers. It seems that the main roles of VPHI are to cover out-of-pocket payments for services that are only partly financed by the public health care system (complementary), and to provide preferential access to treatments that are also available free of charge within the public health care system, but often with some waiting time (duplicate).Published: April 2016.

No abstract