Time is money: general practitioners' reflections on the fee-for-service system.

BACKGROUND: Fee-for-service is a common payment model for remunerating general practitioners (GPs) in OECD countries. In Norway, GPs earn two-thirds of their income through fee-for-service, which is determined by the number of consultations and procedures they register as fees. In general, fee-for-service incentivises many and short consultations and is associated with high service provision. GPs act as gatekeepers for various treatments and interventions, such as addictive drugs, antibiotics, referrals, and sickness certification. This study aims to explore GPs' reflections on and perceptions of the fee-for-service system, with a specific focus on its potential impact on gatekeeping decisions. METHODS: We conducted six focus group interviews with 33 GPs in 2022 in Norway. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified three main themes related to GPs' reflections and perceptions of the fee-for-service system. First, the participants were aware of the profitability of different fees and described potential strategies to increase their income, such as having shorter consultations or performing routine procedures on all patients. Second, the participants acknowledged that the fees might influence GP behaviour. Two perspectives on the fees were present in the discussions: fees as incentives and fees as compensation. The participants reported that financial incentives were not directly decisive in gatekeeping decisions, but that rejecting requests required substantially more time compared to granting them. Consequently, time constraints may contribute to GPs' decisions to grant patient requests even when the requests are deemed unreasonable. Last, the participants reported challenges with remembering and interpreting fees, especially complex fees. CONCLUSIONS: GPs are aware of the profitability within the fee-for-service system, believe that fee-for-service may influence their decision-making, and face challenges with remembering and interpreting certain fees. Furthermore, the fee-for-service system can potentially affect GPs' gatekeeping decisions by incentivising shorter consultations, which may result in increased consultations with inadequate time to reject unnecessary treatments.

The cost of saying no: general practitioners' gatekeeping role in sickness absence certification.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) have an important gatekeeping role in the Norwegian sickness insurance system. This role includes limiting access to paid sick leave when this is not justified according to sick leave criteria. 85% of GPs in Norway operate within a fee-for-service system that incentivises short consultations and high service provision. In this qualitative study, we explore how GPs practise the gatekeeping role in sickness absence certification. METHODS: Qualitative data was collected through six focus group interviews with 33 GPs, working in practices with a minimum of four practising GPs, in different geographical regions across Norway, including both urban and rural areas. Data was analysed using Braune and Clarke's thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Our results indicate that GPs' sick-listing decisions are largely driven by patient demand and preferences for sick leave. GPs reported that they rarely overrule patient requests for sickness absence, including in cases where such requests conflict with the GPs' opinion of whether sick leave is justified or benefits the patient. The degree of effort made to limit unjustified or non-beneficial sick leave seems to depend on the GPs' available time and perceived risk of conflict with the patient. GPs generally expressed dissatisfaction with their role as certifiers of sickness absence. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that GPs' decisions about sickness certification is largely driven by patient preferences. The GPs' gatekeeping function is limited to negotiations about grade and duration of absence spells.

COVID-19 vaccination rates among adolescents (12-17 years) by immigrant background and sociodemographic factors: A nationwide registry study in Norway.

PURPOSE: Lower COVID-19 vaccination rates have been observed among some adult immigrant populations in Norway, and there appears to be an association with sociodemographic factors. However, knowledge is lacking on the distribution of vaccination rates and role of sociodemographic factors among adolescents. This study aims to describe COVID-19 vaccination rates among adolescents according to immigrant background, household income, and parental education. METHODS: In this nationwide registry study, we analyzed individual-level data on adolescents (12-17 years) from the Norwegian Emergency preparedness register for COVID-19 until September 15th, 2022. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRR) for receiving at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose by country background, household income and parental education, using Poisson regression, adjusting for age, sex, and county. RESULTS: The sample comprised 384,815 adolescents. Foreign-born and Norwegian-born with foreign-born parents, had lower vaccination rates (57 % and 58 %) compared to adolescents with at least one Norwegian-born parent (84 %). Vaccination rates by country background varied from 88 % (Vietnam) to 31 % (Russia). Variation and associations by country background, household income, and parental education were greater among 12-15-year-olds than 16-17-year-olds. Household income and parental education were positively associated with vaccination. Compared to the lowest income and education category, IRRs for household income ranged from 1.07 (95 % CI 1.06-1.09) to 1.31 (95 % CI 1.29-1.33) among 12-15-year-olds, and 1.06 (95 % CI 1.04-1.07) to 1.17 (95 % CI 1.15-1.18) among 16-17-year-olds. For parental education, from IRR 1.08 (95 % CI 1.06-1.09) to 1.18 (95 % CI 1.17-1.20) among 12-15-year-olds, and 1.05 (95 % CI 1.04-1.07) to 1.09 (95 % CI 1.07-1.10) among 16-17-year-olds. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination rates varied by immigrant background and age group, with lower rates especially among adolescents with background from Eastern Europe and among younger adolescents. Household income and parental education were positively associated with vaccination rates. Our results may help target measures to increase vaccination rates among adolescents.

Coverage of primary and booster vaccination against COVID-19 by socioeconomic level: A nationwide cross-sectional registry study.

High and equitable COVID-19 vaccination coverage is important for pandemic control and prevention of health inequity. However, little is known about socioeconomic correlates of booster vaccination coverage. In this cross-sectional study of all Norwegian adults in the national vaccination program (N = 4,190,655), we use individual-level registry data to examine coverage by levels of household income and education of primary (≥2 doses) and booster (≥3 doses) vaccination against COVID-19. We stratify the analyses by age groups with different booster recommendations and report relative risk ratios (RR) for vaccination by 25 August 2022. In the 18-44 y group, individuals with highest vs. lowest education had 94% vs. 79% primary coverage (adjusted RR (adjRR) 1.15, 95%CI 1.14-1.15) and 67% vs. 38% booster coverage (adjRR 1.55, 95% CI 1.55-1.56), while individuals with highest vs. lowest income had 94% vs. 81% primary coverage (adjRR 1.10, 95%CI 1.10-1.10) and 60% vs. 43% booster coverage (adjRR 1.23, 95%CI 1.22-1.24). In the ≥45 y group, individuals with highest vs. lowest education had 96% vs. 92% primary coverage (adjRR 1.02, 95%CI 1.02-1.02) and 88% vs. 80% booster coverage (adjRR 1.09, 95%CI 1.09-1.09), while individuals with highest vs. lowest income had 98% vs. 82% primary coverage (adjRR 1.16, 95%CI 1.16-1.16) and 92% vs. 64% booster coverage (adjRR 1.33, 95%CI 1.33-1.34). In conclusion, we document large socioeconomic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccination coverage, especially for booster vaccination, even though all vaccination was free-of-charge. The results highlight the need to tailor information and to target underserved groups for booster vaccination.