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

Ringard, Ånen; Saunes, Ingrid Sperre; Sagan, Anna

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.02.013

Cited by 44 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A good case to consider here is Norway. In 2002, the central Norwegian government took ownership of all public hospitals, creating a highly centralized health care system [53,54]. In 2001, Norway introduced the right of every patient to have an Individual Care Plan, which names a person who coordinates that patient's care across the health care system [55,56].…”

Section: Individual Patient Level Integration: the Example Of Norwaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in turning a great idea into great health policy: the case of integrated care

Raus

Mortier

Eeckloo

2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In the organization of health care and health care systems, there is an increasing trend towards integrated care. Policy-makers from different countries are creating policies intended to promote cooperation and collaboration between health care providers, while facilitating the integration of different health care services. Hopes are high, as such collaboration and integration of care are believed to save resources and improve quality. However, policy-makers are likely to encounter various challenges and limitations when attempting to turn these great ideas into effective policies. In this paper, we look into these challenges. Main body: We argue that the organization of health care and integrated care is of public concern, and should thus be of crucial interest to policy-makers. We highlight three challenges or limitations likely to be encountered by policy-makers in integrated care. These are: (1) conceptual challenges; (2) empirical/methodological challenges; and (3) resource challenges. We will argue that it is still unclear what integrated care means and how we should measure it. 'Integrated care' is a single label that can refer to a great number of different processes. It can describe the integration of care for individual patients, the integration of services aimed at particular patient groups or particular conditions, or it can refer to institution-wide collaborations between different health care providers. We subsequently argue that health reform inevitably possesses a political context that should be taken into account. We also show how evidence supporting integrated care may not guarantee success in every context. Finally, we will discuss how promoting collaboration and integration might actually demand more resources. In the final section, we look at three different paradigmatic examples of integrated care policy: Norway, the UK's NHS, and Belgium. Conclusions: There seems widespread agreement that collaboration and integration are the way forward for health care and health care systems. Nevertheless, we argue that policy-makers should remain careful; they should carefully consider what they hope to achieve, the amount of resources they are willing to invest, and how they will evaluate the success of their policy.

show abstract

Section: Individual Patient Level Integration: the Example Of Norwaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in turning a great idea into great health policy: the case of integrated care

Raus

Mortier

Eeckloo

2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The extent of public responsibility for health care in Norway has been increasing since the beginning of the twentieth century, and today public sources account for over 85% of total health expenditure in Norway [3]. Strengthening the role of patients has been a policy priority since the turn of the millennium, manifested in a comprehensive Patients’ Rights Act.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do experiences with pregnancy, birth and postnatal care in Norway vary by the women’s geographic origin? a comparison of cross-sectional survey results

Sjetne

Iversen

2017

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA national survey was conducted to measure and benchmark women’s experiences with pregnancy, birth and postnatal care in Norway. The purpose of this secondary analysis is to explore potential variation in these experiences with regard to the survey respondents’ geographic origin.MethodsData were collected in a national observational cross-sectional study, by a self-administered questionnaire and from registries. The questionnaire collects patient reported experience measures (PREMS) of mainly nontechnical aspects of the health-care services. While taking the clustered characteristics of the respondents into consideration, we compared the mean scores on 16 indexes between women of four different geographic origins using linear regression models.ResultsThe origin of the 4904 respondents were classified as Norway (n = 4028, 82%), Western Europe, North-America, Oceania (n = 233, 5%), Eastern Europe (n = 290, 6%), and Asia, Turkey, Africa, and South-America) (n = 353, 7%). The observed differences were moderate, and no consistency was present in the results in respect of direction or magnitude of the differences between the groups.ConclusionsWith some important cautions, we conclude that this study did not detect systematic differences between groups of different geographic origin, in their experiences with pregnancy and maternity care in Norway.

show abstract

“…In reality, administrative and medical units belonging to a given pillar live their own life, notwithstanding that recent reforms have aimed at making extant boundaries more porous—a point to which we return shortly. Each branch has its own governance structure shaped by distinctive rules and habits.Fashionable steering tools such as accreditation procedures and output‐based quality assurance have thus been introduced to some sections of the health‐care system (Rivera‐Buendía et al ), at times together with internal management tools for profit‐accounting or performance‐based remuneration (Soberón‐Acevedo and Valdés‐Olmedo ).…”

Section: The Mexican Casementioning

confidence: 99%

Paradoxical Internationalization: Regulatory Reforms in the Mexican Health‐Care System through the Lens of European Experience

Bode

2018

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the recent past, Mexico has been exemplary in having launched regulatory reforms in order to modernize its health-care system, with major objectives being universal insurance coverage and less infrastructural fragmentation. In this article we argue that these reforms, widely inspired by the global New Public Management movement and its aftermath, take shape in a difficult encounter with both the traditional public administration model in Mexico and tensions endemic to the aforementioned reform movement as attempts to enhance system integration coincide with procedural disorganization. This results in a paradoxical internationalization of the Mexican health-care system due to which the above objectives may be difficult to achieve. To illustrate our argument, we examine the Mexican case through the lens of experience two European countries (Germany and Norway) in which reforms have affected the health-care system in a similar way.

show abstract

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

Cited by 44 publications

References 5 publications

Challenges in turning a great idea into great health policy: the case of integrated care

Challenges in turning a great idea into great health policy: the case of integrated care

Do experiences with pregnancy, birth and postnatal care in Norway vary by the women’s geographic origin? a comparison of cross-sectional survey results

Paradoxical Internationalization: Regulatory Reforms in the Mexican Health‐Care System through the Lens of European Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About