Policy-makers' conception of patient non-attendance fees in specialist healthcare: a qualitative document analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients missing their scheduled appointments in specialist healthcare without giving notice can undermine efficient care delivery. To reduce patient non-attendance and possibly compensate healthcare providers, policy-makers have noted the viability of implementing patient non-attendance fees. However, these fees may be controversial and generate public resistance. Identifying the concepts attributed to non-attendance fees is important to better understand the controversies surrounding the introduction and use of these fees. Patient non-attendance fees in specialist healthcare have been extensively debated in Norway and Denmark, two countries that are fairly similar regarding political culture, population size and healthcare system. However, although Norway has implemented a patient non-attendance fee scheme, Denmark has not. This study aimed to identify and compare how policy-makers in Norway and Denmark have conceptualised patient non-attendance fees over three decades. DESIGN: A qualitative document study with a multiple-case design. METHODS: A theory-driven qualitative analysis of policy documents (n=55) was performed. RESULTS: Although patient non-attendance fees were seen as a measure to reduce non-attendance rates in both countries, the specific conceptualisation of the fees differed. The fees were understood as a monetary disincentive in Norwegian policy documents. In the Danish documents, the fees were framed as an educative measure to foster a sense of social responsibility, as well as serving as a monetary disincentive. The data suggest, however, a recent change in the Danish debate emphasising fees as a disincentive. In both countries, fees were partly justified as a means of compensating providers for the loss of income. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate how, as a regulative policy tool, patient non-attendance fees have been conceptualised and framed differently, even in apparently similar contexts. This suggests that a more nuanced and complex understanding of why such fees are debated is needed.

Mapping out the arguments for and against patient non-attendance fees in healthcare: an analysis of public consultation documents.

BACKGROUND: Patients not attending their appointments without giving notice burden healthcare services. To reduce non-attendance rates, patient non-attendance fees have been introduced in various settings. Although some argue in narrow economic terms that behavioural change as a result of financial incentives is a voluntary transaction, charging patients for non-attendance remains controversial. This paper aims to investigate the controversies of implementing patient non-attendance fees. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to map out the arguments in the Norwegian public debate concerning the introduction and use of patient non-attendance fees at public outpatient clinics. METHODS: Public consultation documents (2009-2021) were thematically analysed (n=84). We used a preconceived conceptual framework based on the works of Grant to guide the analysis. RESULTS: A broad range of arguments for and against patient non-attendance fees were identified, here referring to the acceptability of the fees' purpose, the voluntariness of the responses, the effects on the individual character and institutional norms and the perceived fairness and comparative effectiveness of patient non-attendance fees. Whereas the aim of motivating patients to keep their appointments to avoid poor utilisation of resources and increased waiting times was widely supported, principled and practical arguments against patient non-attendance fees were raised. CONCLUSION: A narrow economic understanding of incentives cannot capture the breadth of arguments for and against patient non-attendance fees. Policy makers may draw on this insight when implementing similar incentive schemes. The study may also contribute to the general debate on ethics and incentives.

On the person in personal health responsibility.

In this paper, we start by comparing the two agents, Ann and Bob, who are involved in two car crashes. Whereas Ann crashes her car through no fault of her own, Bob crashes as a result of reckless driving. Unlike Ann, Bob is held criminally responsible, and the insurance company refuses to cover the car's damages. Nonetheless, Ann and Bob both receive emergency hospital treatment that a third party covers, regardless of any assessment of personal responsibility. What warrants such apparent exceptionalism with respect to personal responsibility in the healthcare context? We turn our attention to an understudied aspect of the debate on personal health responsibility, namely, the conceptualisation of the person in need of emergency hospital treatment. Drawing on the research of Joshua Knobe and Shaun Nichols, we propose that a context-dependent conceptualisation of the person may help explain a reluctance to ascribe responsibility to the individual for negative health outcomes.

Avoiding hypersensitive reluctance to address parental responsibility in childhood obesity.

Childhood obesity is an increasing health problem. Prior empirical research suggests that, although discussing lifestyle behaviours with parents could help prevent childhood obesity and its health-related consequences, physicians are reluctant to address parental responsibility in the clinical setting. Therefore, this paper questions whether parents might be (or might be held) responsible for their children's obesity, and if so, whether parental responsibility ought to be addressed in the physician-patient/parent encounter. We illustrate how different ideal-typical models of the physician-patient/parent interaction emphasise different understandings of patient autonomy and parental responsibility and argue that these models advocate different responses to an appeal for discussing parents' role in childhood obesity. We suggest that responsibility should be attributed to parents because of their parental roles in providing for their children's welfare. We also argue that whether, and how, this responsibility gives rise to a requirement to act depends on the parents' capacities. A deliberative-oriented physician-patient/parent interaction best captures the current ideals of antipaternalism, patient autonomy, and shared and evidence-informed decision-making, and might facilitate parental role development. We conclude that, while not discussing parental responsibility for childhood obesity in the clinical setting can be warranted in particular cases, this cannot be justified as a general rule.

When law meets morality. / Når jus og moral møtes.

Who owns the information about potential illness ­ the person who takes the test or all those to whom this information applies?