Preserving social equity in marketized primary care: strategies in Sweden

Evaluating the impact of the 2010 Swedish choice reform in primary health care on avoidable hospitalization and socioeconomic inequities: an interrupted time series analysis using register data

BACKGROUND

The Swedish Primary Health Care (PHC) system has, like in other European countries, undergone a gradual transition towards marketization and privatization, most distinctly through a 2010 choice reform. The reform led to an overall but regionally heterogenous expansion of private PHC providers in Sweden, and with evidence also pointing to possible inequities in various aspects of PHC provision. Evidence on the reform's impact on population-level primary health care performance and equity in performance remains scarce. The present study therefore aimed to examine whether the increase in private provision after the reform impacted on population-average rates of avoidable hospitalizations, as well as on corresponding socioeconomic inequities.

METHODS

This register-based study used a multiple-group interrupted time-series design for the study period 2001-2017, with the study population (N = 51 million observations) randomly drawn from the total Swedish population aged 18-85 years. High, medium, and low implementing comparison groups were classified by tertiles of increase in private PHC providers after the reform. PHC performance was measured by avoidable hospitalizations, and socioeconomic position by education and income. Interrupted time series analysis based on individual-level data was used to estimate the reform impact on avoidable hospitalization risk, and on inequities through the Relative Index of Inequality (RII).

RESULTS

All three comparisons groups displayed decreasing risk of avoidable hospitalizations but increasing socioeconomic inequities across the study period. Compared to regions with little change in provision after the reform, regions with large increase in private provision saw a steeper decrease in avoidable hospitalizations after the reform (relative risk (95%): 1.6% (1.1; 2.1)), but at the same time steeper increase in inequities (by education: 2.0% (0.1%; 4.0); by income: 2.2% (-0.1; 4.3)).

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that the increase in private health care centers, enabled by the choice reform, contributed to a small improvement when it comes to overall PHC performance, but simultaneously to increased socioeconomic inequities in PHC performance. This duality in the impact of the Swedish reform also reflects the arguments in the European health policy debate on patient choice PHC models, with hopes of improved performance but fears of increased inequities.

Measuring competition in primary care-Evidence from Sweden

INTRODUCTION

In many tax-based healthcare systems, policymakers have introduced reforms that promote provider competition with the intention of improving the quality and efficiency. Healthcare competition is usually defined spatially, with local markets often being identified as a circle around each provider. We argue that existing local market definitions can be improved to better capture actual local markets. For pro-competition reforms to potentially lead to the gains envisioned by policymakers, a crucial condition is the actual emergence of competitive markets. However, limited research has been conducted on competition in primary care markets, despite primary care constituting a vital part of a healthcare system.

AIM

The study aims to contribute to the debate on how to define local markets geographically and to examine provider competition in Swedish primary care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted using data on all individuals and all primary care providers in Sweden. Local markets were defined as: fixed radius (1 km and 3 km); variable radius; and variable shape-our new local market definition that allows markets to vary in both size and shape. Competition was measured using the Herfindahl-Hirschman index and a count of the number of competitors within the local market.

RESULTS

Fixed radius markets fail to capture variation within and across geographical areas. The variable radius and variable shape markets are similar but do not always identify the same competitors or level of competition. Furthermore, competition levels vary significantly in Swedish primary care. Many providers operate in monopoly markets, whereas others face high competition.

CONCLUSIONS

While the variable shape approach has the potential to better capture actual markets and more accurately identify competitors, further analyses are needed. Moreover, Swedish policymakers are advised to decide whether to still pursue competition and if so, take measures to improve local market conditions in monopolies.

A novel application of interrupted time series analysis to identify the impact of a primary health care reform on intersectional inequities in avoidable hospitalizations in the adult Swedish population

Primary health care (PHC) systems are a crucial instrument for achieving equitable population health, but there is little evidence of how PHC reforms impact equities in population health. In 2010, Sweden implemented a reform that promoted marketization and privatization of PHC. The present study uses a novel integration of intersectionality-informed and evaluative epidemiological analytical frameworks to disentangle the impact of the 2010 Swedish PHC reform on intersectional inequities in avoidable hospitalizations. The study population comprised the total Swedish population aged 18-85 years across 2001-2017, in total 129 million annual observations, for whom register data on sociodemographics and hospitalizations due to ambulatory care sensitive conditions were retrieved. Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Analyses (MAIHDA) were run for the pre-reform (2001-2009) and post-reform (2010-2017) periods to provide a mapping of inequities. In addition, random effects estimates reflecting the discriminatory accuracy of intersectional strata were extracted from a series MAIHDAs run per year 2001-2017. The estimates were re-analyzed by Interrupted Time Series Analysis (ITSA), in order to identify the impact of the reform on measures of intersectional inequity in avoidable hospitalizations. The results point to a complex reconfiguration of social inequities following the reform. While the post-reform period showed a reduction in overall rates of avoidable hospitalizations and in age disparities, socioeconomic inequities in avoidable hospitalizations, as well as the importance of interactions between complex social positions, both increased. Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups born in the Nordic countries seem to have benefited the least from the reform. The study supports a greater attention to the potentially complex consequences that health reforms can have on inequities in health and health care, which may not be immediate apparent in conventional evaluations of either population-average outcomes, or by simple evaluations of equity impacts. Methodological approaches for evaluation of complex inequity impacts need further development.

Health services in Nordic welfare states: Introducing a new category of providers through the Norwegian free treatment choice reform

Aim: We contribute to the literature on private provision of health care in Nordic countries by studying developments following the 2015 Norwegian free treatment choice reform. The reform introduced new providers of publicly financed health care. These new private for-profit or not-for-profit providers are licensed by Helfo (the Norwegian Health Economics Administration) to offer pre-defined services at pre-defined prices. They treat patients referred to specialist health care given that patients choose these providers. We focus on multidisciplinary specialist substance treatment and mental health care, areas constituting 78% of reform costs in 2019. Methods and data: We discuss three sets of questions with statistics, documents, and interview data: What developments and consequences of new providers did key actors expect? What developments of Helfo-licensed providers do we see and why? How have Helfo-licensed providers influenced collaboration between public and non-public providers and recruitment? Results: Contrary to expectations, we found that most Helfo-licensed providers have not previously collaborated with public providers through tender agreements. This complicates collaboration. So far, the establishment of new providers has not undermined public providers in terms of recruitment. Conclusion: Public providers with Helfo-licensed providers in their area still experience some pressure on recruitment and express concerns for future negative reform consequences. The introduction of new private providers may influence the level of market-orientation in the Norwegian welfare state.

Fifteen years with patient choice and free establishment in Swedish primary healthcare: what do we know?

Background:

In 2007, a reform of Swedish primary healthcare began when some regions implemented enhanced patient choice in combination with free establishment for private providers. Although heavily debated, in 2010 it became mandatory for all regions to implement this choice system.

Aim:

The aim of this article was to review all published research articles related to the primary healthcare choice reform in Sweden, to investigate what has been published about the reform and summarise its first 15 years.

Methods:

A scoping review was performed to cover the breadth of research on the reform. Searches were made in Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed for articles published between 2007 and 2021, resulting in 217 unique articles. In total, 52 articles were included.

Results:

The articles were summarised and presented in relation to six overarching themes: arguments about the primary healthcare choice reform; governance and financial reimbursements; choice of provider and use of information; effects on equity and access; effects on quality; and differences between private and public primary healthcare centres.

Conclusions:

The articles show that the reform has led to an increase in access to primary healthcare, but most studies indicate that the increase is inequitably distributed in terms of socioeconomy and geographical location. The effects on quality are unclear but several studies show that the mechanisms supposed to lead to quality improvements do not work as intended. Furthermore, from a population health perspective, it is time to discuss how such a responsibility can be reintegrated into primary healthcare and function with the choice system.