The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Portrait of Anders Anell. Photo.

Anders Anell

Professor

Portrait of Anders Anell. Photo.

General practice in the Nordic countries

Author

  • Kim Rose Olsen
  • Anders Anell
  • Unto Häkkinen
  • Tor Iversen
  • Thorhildur Ólafsdóttir
  • Matt Sutton

Summary, in English

Background: General practice systems in the Nordic countries share certain common features. The sector is based on the Nordic model of a tax-financed supply of services with a political objective of equal access for all. The countries also share the challenges of increased political expectations to deliver primary prevention and increased workload as patients from hospital care are discharged earlier. However, within this common framework, primary care is organized differently. This is particularly in relation to the private-public mix, remuneration systems and the use of financial and non-financial incentives.

Objective: The objective of this paper is to compare the differences and similarities in primary care among the Nordic countries, to create a mapping of the future plans and reforms linked to remuneration and incentives schemes, and to discuss the pros and cons for these plans with reference to the literature. An additional objective is to identify gaps in the literature and future research opportunities.

Results/Conclusions: Despite the many similarities within the Nordic health care systems, the primary care sectors function under highly different arrangements. Most important are the differences in the gate-keeping function, private versus salaried practices, possibilities for corporate ownership, skill-mix and the organisational structure. Current reforms and political agendas appear to focus on the side effects of the individual countries’ specific systems. For example, countries with salaried systems with geographical responsibility are introducing incentives for private practice and more choices for patients. Countries with systems largely based on private practice are introducing more monitoring and public regulation to control budgets. We also see that new governments tends to bring different views on the future organisation of primary care, which provide considerable political tension but few actual changes. Interestingly, Sweden appears to be the most innovative in relation to introducing new incentive schemes, perhaps because decisions are made at a more decentralised level.

Department/s

  • Department of Business Administration

Publishing year

2016

Language

English

Pages

56-67

Publication/Series

Nordic Journal of Health Economics

Volume

4

Issue

1

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

University of Oslo

Topic

  • Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Keywords

  • general practice
  • remuneration
  • primary care
  • incentives
  • Nordic countries

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1892-9729