Improving accessibility for outpatients in specialist clinics: reducing long waiting times and waiting lists with a simple analytic approach.

BACKGROUND: Lack of resources is often cited as a reason for long waiting times and queues in health services. However, recent research indicates these problems are related to factors such as uncoordinated variation of demand and capacity, planning horizons, and lower capacity than the potential of actual resources. This study aimed to demonstrate that long waiting times and wait lists are not necessarily associated with increasing demand or changes in resources. We report how substantial reductions in waiting times/wait lists across a range of specialties was obtained by improvements of basic problems identified through value-stream mapping and unsophisticated analyses. METHODS: In-depth analyses of current operational processes by value-stream mapping were used to identify bottlenecks and sources of waste. Waiting parameters and measures of demand and resources were assessed monthly from 12 months before the intervention to 6 months after the intervention. The effect of the intervention on reducing waiting time and number of patients waiting were evaluated by a difference-in-differences analysis. RESULTS: Mean waiting time across all clinics was reduced from 162 + 69 days (range 74-312 days) at baseline to 52 + 10 days (range 41-74 days) 6 months after the intervention. The time needed to achieve a waiting time of 65 days varied from 4 to 21 months. The number of new patients waiting was reduced from 15,874 (range 369-2980) to 8922 (range 296-1650), and the number of delayed returning patients was reduced from 18,700 (310-3324) to 5993 (40-1337) (p < 0.01 for all). Improvement in waiting measures paralleled a significant increase in planning horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements in accessibility for patients waiting for service may be achieved by applying unsophisticated methods and analyses and without increasing resources. Engagement of clinical management and involvement of front line personnel are important factors for improvement.

Which patients receive surgery in for-profit and non-profit hospitals in a universal health system? An explorative register-based study in Norway.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the socioeconomic status (SES) and case-mix among day surgical patients treated at private for-profit hospitals (PFPs) and non-profit hospitals (NPs) in Norway, and to explore whether the use of PFPs in a universal health system has compromised the principle of equal access regardless of SES. DESIGN: A retrospective, exploratory study comparing hospital types using the Norwegian Patient Register linked with socioeconomic data from Statistics Norway by using Norwegian citizens' personal identification numbers. SETTING: The Norwegian healthcare system. POPULATION: All publicly financed patients in five Norwegian metropolitan areas having day surgery for meniscus (34 100 patients), carpal tunnel syndrome (15 010), benign breast hypertrophy (6297) or hallux valgus (2135) from 2009 to 2014. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Having surgery at a PFP or NP. RESULTS: Across four unique procedures, the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for using PFPs were generally lower for the lowest educational level (0.77-0.87) and the lowest income level (0.68-0.89), though aORs were not always significant. Likewise, comorbidity and previous hospitalisation had lower aORs (0.62-0.95; 0.44-0.97, respectively) for having surgery at PFPs across procedures, though again aORs were not always significant. No clear patterns emerged with respect to age, gender or higher levels of income and education. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from our study of four procedures suggests that equal access to PFPs compared with NPs for those patients at the lowest education and income levels may be compromised, though further investigations are needed to generalise these findings across more procedures and probe causal mechanisms and appropriate policy remedies. The finding that comorbidity and previous hospitalisation had lower odds of treatment at PFPs indicates that NPs play an essential role for more complex patients, but raises questions about patient preference and cream skimming.

Development of voluntary private health insurance in Nordic countries - An exploratory study on country-specific contextual factors.

The Nordic countries are healthcare systems with tax-based financing and ambitions for universal access to comprehensive services. This implies that distribution of healthcare resources should be based on individual needs, not on the ability to pay. Despite this ideological orientation, significant expansion in voluntary private health insurance (VPHI) contracts has occurred in recent decades. The development and role of VPHIs are different across the Nordic countries. Complementary VPHI plays a significant role in Denmark and in Finland. Supplementary VPHI is prominent in Norway and Sweden. The aim of this paper is to explore drivers behind the developments of the VPHI markets in the Nordic countries. We analyze the developments in terms of the following aspects: the performance of the statutory system (real or perceived), lack of coverage in certain areas of healthcare, governmental interventions or inability to reform the system, policy trends and the general socio-cultural environment, and policy responses to voting behavior or lobbying by certain interest groups. It seems that the early developments in VPHI markets have been an answer to the gaps in the national health systems created by institutional contexts, political decisions, and cultural interpretations on the functioning of the system. However, once the market is created it introduces new dynamics that have less to do with gaps and inflexibilities and more with cultural factors.