Ameliorating Child poverty through Connecting Economic Services with child health Services (ACCESS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the healthier wealthier families model in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Sweden is often held up as an example of a country with low child deprivation; yet, rates of relative deprivation are rising. Every municipality in Sweden is required to provide free, timely and accessible budget and debt counselling under the Social Services Act. The services have been encouraged to perform preventative practice with families; however, this has not been realised. The Healthier Wealthier Families (HWF) model embeds universal screening for economic hardship into child health services and creates a referral pathway to economic support services. Given the universal child health system in Sweden, which is freely available and has excellent coverage of the child population, implementation of the HWF model has potential to support families to access the freely available municipal budget and debt counselling and ultimately improve rates of child deprivation in Sweden. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a two-arm randomised waitlist-control superiority trial to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the HWF model in the Sweden. A longitudinal follow-up with the cohort will explore whether any effects are maintained in the longer-term. DISCUSSION: HWF is a collaborative and sustainable model that could maximise the effectiveness of current services to address child deprivation in Sweden. The study outlined in this protocol is the first effectiveness evaluation of the HWF model in Sweden and is a crucial step before HWF can be recommended for national implementation within the child health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT05511961. Prospectively registered on 23 August 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05511961.

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.

Achieving higher performing primary care through patient registration: A review of twelve high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Patient registration with a primary care providers supports continuity in the patient-provider relationship. This paper develops a framework for analysing the characteristics of patient registration across countries; applies this framework to a selection of countries; and identifies challenges and ongoing reform efforts. METHODS: 12 jurisdictions (Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Ontario [Canada], Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom) were selected for analysis. Information was collected by national researchers who reviewed relevant literature and policy documents to report on the establishment and evolution of patient registration, the requirements and benefits for patients, providers and payers, and its connection to primary care reforms. RESULTS: Patient registration emerged as part of major macro-level health reforms linked to the introduction of universal health coverage. Recent reforms introduced registration with the aim of improving quality through better coordination and efficiency through reductions in unnecessary referrals. Patient registration is mandatory only in three countries. Several countries achieve high levels of registration by using strong incentives for patients and physicians (capitation payments). CONCLUSION: Patient registration means different things in different countries and policy-makers and researchers need to take into consideration: the history and characteristics of the registration system; the use of incentives for patients and providers; and the potential for more explicit use of patient-provider agreements as a policy to achieve more timely, appropriate, continuous and integrated care.

Preserving social equity in marketized primary care: strategies in Sweden.

A primary care choice reform launched in Sweden in 2010 led to a rapid growth of private providers. Critics feared that the reform would lead to an increased tendency among new, profit-driven, providers, to select patients with lower health risks. Even if open risk selection is prohibited, providers can select patients in more subtle ways, such as establishing their practices in areas with higher health status. This paper investigates to what extent strategies were employed by local governments to avoid risk selection and whether there were any differences between left- and right-wing governments in this regard. Three main strategies were used: risk adjustment of the financial reimbursements on the basis of health and/or socio-economic status of listed patients; design of patient listing systems; and regulatory requirements regarding the scope and content of the services that had to be offered by all providers. Additionally, left-wing local governments were more prone than right-wing governments to adopt risk adjustment strategies at the onset of the reform but these differences diminished over time. The findings of the paper contribute to our understanding of how social inequalities may be avoided in tax-based health care systems when market-like steering models such as patient choice are introduced.

Risk selection in primary care: a cross-sectional fixed effect analysis of Swedish individual data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess socioeconomic differences between patients registered with private and public primary healthcare centres. DESIGN: Population-based cross-sectional study controlling for municipality and household. SETTING: Swedish population-based socioeconomic data collected from Statistics Sweden linked with individual registration data from all 21 Swedish regions. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals residing in Sweden on 31 December 2015 (n=9 851 017) were included in the study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Registration with private versus public primary healthcare centres. RESULTS: After controlling for municipality and household, individuals with higher socioeconomic status were more likely to be registered with a private primary healthcare provider. Individuals in the highest income quantile were 4.9 percentage points (13.7%) more likely to be registered with a private primary healthcare provider compared with individuals in the lowest income quantile. Individuals with 1-3 years of higher education were 4.7 percentage points more likely to be registered with a private primary healthcare provider compared with those with an incomplete primary education. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that there are notable differences in registration patterns, indicating a skewed distribution of patients and health risks between private and public primary healthcare providers. This suggests that risk selection behaviour occurs in the reformed Swedish primary healthcare system, foremost through location patterns.

Free establishment of primary health care providers: effects on geographical equity.

BACKGROUND: A reform in 2010 in Swedish primary care made it possible for private primary care providers to establish themselves freely in the country. In the former, publicly planned system, location was strictly regulated by local authorities. The goal of the new reform was to increase access and quality of health care. Critical arguments were raised that the reform could have detrimental effects on equity if the new primary health care providers chose to establish foremost in socioeconomically prosperous areas. The aim of this study is to examine how the primary care choice reform has affected geographical equity by analysing patterns of establishment on the part of new private providers. METHODS: The basis of the design was to analyse socio-economic data on individuals who reside in the same electoral areas in which the 1411 primary health care centres in Sweden are established. Since the primary health care centres are located within 21 different county councils with different reimbursement schemes, we controlled for possible cluster effects utilizing generalized estimating equations modelling. The empirical material used in the analysis is a cross-sectional data set containing socio-economic data of the geographical areas in which all primary health care centres are established. RESULTS: When controlling for the effects of the county council regulation, primary health care centres established after the primary care choice reform were found to be located in areas with significantly fewer older adults living alone as well as fewer single parents - groups which generally have lower socio-economic status and high health care needs. However, no significant effects were observed for other socio-economic variables such as mean income, percentage of immigrants, education, unemployment, and children <5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The primary care choice reform seems to have had some negative effects on geographical equity, even though these seem relatively minor.