Improving the effectiveness of sickness benefit case management through a public-private partnership? A difference-in-difference analysis in eighteen Danish municipalities

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate whether a multidimensional public-private partnership intervention, focussing on improving the quality and efficiency of sickness benefit case management, reduced the sickness benefit duration and the duration until self-support.MethodsWe used a difference-in-difference (DID) design with six intervention municipalities and 12 matched control municipalities in Denmark. The study sample comprised 282,103 sickness benefit spells exceeding four weeks. The intervention group with 110,291 spells received the intervention, and the control group with 171,812 spells received ordinary sickness benefit case management. Using register data, we fitted Cox proportional hazard ratio models, estimating hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CI).ResultsWe found no joint effect of the intervention on the sickness benefit duration (HR 1.02, CI 0.97–1.07) or the duration until self-support (HR 0.99, CI 0.96–1.02). The effect varied among the six municipalities, with sickness benefit HRs ranging from 0.96 (CI 0.93–1.00) to 1.13 (CI 1.08–1.18) and self-support HRs ranging from 0.91 (CI 0.82–1.00) to 1.11 (CI 1.06–1.17).ConclusionsCompared to receiving ordinary sickness benefit management the intervention had on average no effect on the sickness benefit duration or duration until self-support. However, the effect varied considerably among the six municipalities possibly due to differences in the implementation or the complexity of the intervention.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4236-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Public-private partnership models for rehabilitation service delivery: A scoping review

“…Of the nine included studies, approximately 56% ( n = 5) were from Australia (Farquhar, Moran & Schmidt 2020 ; Schmidt & Dmytryk 2014 ) and the remainder 44% ( n = 4) from Hong Kong (Schoeb 2016 ), Denmark (Larsen, Aust & Høgelund 2017 ), Bangladesh (Al Imam et al 2022 ) and the Netherlands (Ijntema et al 2022 ) with a study each. Qualitative study designs were mostly retrieved (44%).…”

“…All included studies focused on physiotherapy services. The PPP models discussed by these included studies were as follows: business model (Al Imam et al 2022 ; Carr, Kidd & Maloney 2013 ; Farquhar et al 2020 ; Ijntema et al 2022 ), informal PPP recruitment model (Schmidt & Dmytryk 2014 ), new graduate physiotherapists’ education PPP model (Schmidt & Dmytryk 2017 ), individual funding (IF) model (Dew et al 2013 ), social health model (Schoeb 2016 ) and Falck’s rehabilitation model (Larsen et al 2017 ). The services provided varied and primarily targeted all individuals requiring physiotherapy ( Table 1 ).…”

“…In Denmark, Larsen et al investigated whether a multifaceted PPP intervention aimed at improving the quality and efficiency of sickness benefit case management reduced sickness benefit duration and time to self-sufficiency (Larsen et al 2017 ). There was no joint effect of the intervention on the duration of sickness benefits (hazard ratios [HR]: 1.02, confidence interval [CI]: 0.97–1.07) or the duration until self-sufficiency (HR: 0.99, CI: 0.96–1.02) (Larsen et al 2017 ). The effect varied by municipality, with sickness benefit HRs ranging from 0.96 (CI: 0.93–1.00) to 1.13 (CI: 1.08–1.18) and self-support HRs ranging from 0.91 (CI: 0.82–1.00) to 1.11 (CI: 1.08–1.18).…”

“…The effect varied by municipality, with sickness benefit HRs ranging from 0.96 (CI: 0.93–1.00) to 1.13 (CI: 1.08–1.18) and self-support HRs ranging from 0.91 (CI: 0.82–1.00) to 1.11 (CI: 1.08–1.18). (CI: 1.06–1.17) (Larsen et al 2017 ).…”

Promoting labour market inclusion of the chronically ill: a scoping review of Scandinavian countries’ efforts

“…a Cross-country studies which included Scandinavian countries [41,42]. Braathen et al [55] Hara et al [88] johanson et al [59] kaldo et al [46] knapstad et al [56] reme et al [45] Skagseth et al [89] victor et al [90] Wormgoor et al [91] Øverland et al [92] Dellve et al [48] Evans-lacko and knapp [42] kuznetsova and Bento [49] larsen et al [93] Backhans et al [41] Bratberg et al [44] Grahn et al [94] Martin et al [95] number of positive studies in parentheses. We can observe similar shares of positive effects across all countries and interventions.…”