IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/oslohe/2002_007.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reforming decentralized integrated health care systems: Theory and the case of the Norwegian reform

Author

Listed:
  • Pedersen, Kjeld Møller

    () (Department of public health, health economics)

Abstract

In this essay a conceptual and theoretical scheme for decentralized integrated health care systems of the northern European kind is developed. With small changes it is also applicable to other countries, e.g. Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Three ideas tie together the scheme: modified fiscal federalism, principalagent thinking and the analysis of discrete structural alternatives from new institutional economics. As a special case it encompasses the ideas of planned markets and public competition developed by von Otter and Saltman. The scheme can be used to analyse driving forces behind reforms and prediction of effects. To illustrate the thinking the recent Norwegian reform is put into context, not only geographically but also theoretically. The geographical context is that of Scandinavia and there is a summary of reforms in the Scandinavian countries over the past 20-30 years. The essay thus serves the double purpose of presenting and evaluating the Norwegian reform in a Scandinavian context and to take part in the neglected discipline of developing a theory of health care reform. The Norwegian January 2002 reform is described in some detail. It is a reversal of the Scandinavian model of decentralization and a move towards more centralism. The hospital system was transferred to the state that established five regions with independent (non-political) boards and each region has a number of daughters (hospitals) that have great autonomy with their own boards and are outside the legal restrictions of the public sector. Basically the idea is to mimic the corporate structure of large private companies. The reform is evaluated based on principal-agent thinking and the analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Overall there is no a priori reason to expect large improvements in efficiency – but on the other hand neither should one expect things to get worse. Many effects depend, however, crucially, on (a) the financing system that will be put in place late 2002 or early 2003, and (b) whether or not the political and management culture change as a result of the reform. In the concluding sections possible implications for Denmark and Sweden are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Pedersen, Kjeld Møller, 2009. "Reforming decentralized integrated health care systems: Theory and the case of the Norwegian reform," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2002:7, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:oslohe:2002_007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hero.uio.no/publicat/2002/HERO2002_7.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chalkley, M. & Malcomson, J.M., 1996. "Contracts for National Health Service," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 9641, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    2. U. -G. Gerdtham & C. Rehnberg & M. Tambour, 1999. "The impact of internal markets on health care efficiency: evidence from health care reforms in Sweden," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(8), pages 935-945.
    3. Chalkley, Martin & Malcomson, James M, 1998. "Contracting for Health Services with Unmonitored Quality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(449), pages 1093-1110, July.
    4. János Kornai, 2014. "The soft budget constraint," Acta Oeconomica, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 64(supplemen), pages 25-79, November.
    5. U.-G. Gerdtham & M. Löthgren & M. Tambour & C. Rehnberg, 1999. "Internal markets and health care efficiency: a multiple-output stochastic frontier analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 151-164.
    6. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743, January.
    7. Elias Mossialos, 1997. "Citizens' Views on Health Care Systems in the 15 Member States of The European Union," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 109-116.
    8. Chalkley, Martin & Malcomson, James M, 1996. "Contracts for the National Health Service," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(439), pages 1691-1701, November.
    9. Hammer, Michael & Champy, James, 1993. "Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 90-91.
    10. Wallace E. Oates, 1999. "An Essay on Fiscal Federalism," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1120-1149, September.
    11. repec:mes:jeciss:v:30:y:1996:i:4:p:1212-1216 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Kutzin, Joseph, 2001. "A descriptive framework for country-level analysis of health care financing arrangements," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 171-204, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Health care reform; Norway; principal-agents; discrete structural analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • H71 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • H72 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Budget and Expenditures
    • H73 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Interjurisdictional Differentials and Their Effects
    • H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:oslohe:2002_007. 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: (Anbjørg Kolaas). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/heuiono.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.