Prioritization and patients' rights: Analysing the effect of a reform in the Norwegian hospital sector
The right to equal treatment, irrespective of age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status and place of residence, is an important principle for several health care systems. A reform of the Norwegian hospital sector of 2002 may be used as a relevant experiment for investigating whether centralization of ownership and management structures will lead to more equal prioritization practices over geographical regions. One concern was variation in waiting times across the country. The reform was followed up in subsequent years by some other policy initiatives that also aimed at reducing waiting lists. We measure prioritization practice by a method that takes departure in recommended maximum waiting times from medical guidelines. We merge the information from the guidelines with individual patient data on actual waiting times for the period 1999-2005. This way we can monitor whether each patient in the available register of actual hospital visits has waited shorter or longer than what is considered medically acceptable by the guideline. The results indicate no equalization between the five new health regions, but we find evidence of more equal prioritization within four of the health regions. Our method of measuring prioritizations allows us to analyse how prioritization practice evolved over time after the reform, thus covering some further initiatives with the same objective. The results indicate that an observed reduction in waiting times after the reform have favoured patients of lower prioritization status, something we interpret as a general worsening of prioritization practices over time.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 70 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:2:p:199-208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.