School absence policy and healthcare use: a difference-in-difference cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: A national policy in Norway demanding certificates for medical absences in upper secondary school was implemented in 2016, leading to an increase in general practitioner (GP) visits in this age group. OBJECTIVES: To assess the policy's effect on the use of primary and specialist healthcare. METHODS: A cohort study following all Norwegian youth aged 14-21 in the years 2010-2019 using a difference-in-differences approach comparing exposed cohorts expected to attend upper secondary school after the policy change in 2016 with previous unexposed cohorts. Data were collected from national registries. RESULTS: The absence policy led to the increased number of contacts with GPs for exposed cohorts during all exposed years, with estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) in the range from 1.14 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.11-1.18) to 1.25 (95% CI 1.21-1.30). Consultations for respiratory tract infections increased during exposed years. However, there was no conclusive policy-related difference in mental health consultations with GPs. In specialist healthcare we did not find conclusive evidence of an effect of absence policy on the risk of any contact per school year, but there was a slightly increased risk of contacts with ear-nose-throat specialist services. CONCLUSIONS: We found an increase in general practice contacts attributable to the school absence policy. Apart from a possible increase in ear-nose-throat contacts, increased GP attention did not increase specialized healthcare.

In 2016, a national policy was introduced for upper secondary students demanding certificates for medical absences. This was followed by an increase in general practitioner (GP) contacts, and consultations for respiratory tract infections doubled. We wanted to examine youth contacts with general practice, and also to look into contacts with specialist health care and for specific diagnoses. We chose to compare the age trends among birth cohorts affected by the policy to earlier, unaffected cohorts to minimize the impact of time trends. We found a 14%­25% increase in contacts with general practice offices attributable to the policy and a doubling of consultations for respiratory tract infections. Mental health consultations were minimally affected. Overall, specialist somatic or mental healthcare was seemingly not affected, but selected ear­nose­throat diagnoses increased somewhat among cohorts affected by the policy. Thus, the GPs' gatekeeping role seems to have worked in most cases. The policy did not appear to affect health care seeking substantially after upper secondary school.

Place of death among older people in Finland and Norway.

Aims: This study aimed to find out how place of death varied between countries with different health and social service systems. This was done by investigating typical groups (concerning age, sex and end-of-life trajectory) of older people dying in different places in Finland and Norway. Methods: The data were derived from national registers. All those who died in Finland or Norway at the age of ⩾70 years in 2011 were included. Place of death was analysed by age, sex, end-of-life trajectory and degree of urbanisation of the municipality of residence. Two-proportion z-tests were performed to test the differences between the countries. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed separately for both countries to find the factors associated with place of death. Results: The data consisted of 68,433 individuals. Deaths occurred most commonly in health centres in Finland and in nursing homes in Norway. Deaths in hospital were more common in Norway than they were in Finland. In both countries, deaths in hospital were more common among younger people and men. Deaths in nursing homes were commonest among frail older people, while most of those who had a terminal illness died in health centres in Finland and in nursing homes in Norway. Conclusions: Both Finland and Norway have a relatively low share of hospital deaths among older people. Both countries have developed alternatives to end-of-life care in hospital, allowing for spending the last days or weeks of life closer to home. In Finland, health centres play a key role in end-of-life care, while in Norway nursing homes serve this role.

Costs and Quality at the Hospital Level in the Nordic Countries.

This article develops and analyzes patient register-based measures of quality for the major Nordic countries. Previous studies show that Finnish hospitals have significantly higher average productivity than hospitals in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway and also a substantial variation within each country. This paper examines whether quality differences can form part of the explanation and attempts to uncover quality-cost trade-offs. Data on costs and discharges in each diagnosis-related group for 160 acute hospitals in 2008-2009 were collected. Patient register-based measures of quality such as readmissions, mortality (in hospital or outside), and patient safety indices were developed and case-mix adjusted. Productivity is estimated using bootstrapped data envelopment analysis. Results indicate that case-mix adjustment is important, and there are significant differences in the case-mix adjusted performance measures as well as in productivity both at the national and hospital levels. For most quality indicators, the performance measures reveal room for improvement. There is a weak but statistical significant trade-off between productivity and inpatient readmissions within 30 days but a tendency that hospitals with high 30-day mortality also have higher costs. Hence, no clear cost-quality trade-off pattern was discovered. Patient registers can be used and developed to improve future quality and cost comparisons.

International hospital productivity comparison: experiences from the Nordic countries.

This article focuses on describing the methodological challenges intrinsic in international comparative studies of hospital productivity and how these challenges have been addressed within the context of hospital comparisons in the Nordic countries. The hospital sectors in the Nordic countries are suitable for international comparison as they exhibit similar structures in the organisation for hospital care, hold administrative data of good quality at the hospital level, apply a similar secondary patient classification system, and use similar definitions of operating costs. The results of a number of studies have suggested marked differences in hospital cost efficiency and hospital productivity across the Nordic countries and the Finnish hospitals have the highest estimates in all the analyses. Explanatory factors that were tested and seemed to be of limited importance included institutional, structural and technical. A factor that is yet to be included in the Nordic hospital productivity comparison is the quality of care. Patient-level data available from linkable national registers in each country enable the development of quality indicators and will be included in the forthcoming hospital productivity studies within the context of the EuroHOPE (European health care outcomes, performance and efficiency) project.

Cost efficiency of university hospitals in the Nordic countries: a cross-country analysis.

This paper estimates cost efficiency scores using the bootstrap bias-corrected procedure, including variables for teaching and research, for the performance of university hospitals in the Nordic countries. Previous research has shown that hospital provision of research and education interferes with patient care routines and inflates the costs of health care services, turning university hospitals into outliers in comparative productivity and efficiency analyses. The organisation of patient care, medical education and clinical research as well as available data at the university hospital level are highly similar in the Nordic countries, creating a data set of comparable decision-making units suitable for a cross-country cost efficiency analysis. The results demonstrate significant differences in university hospital cost efficiency when variables for teaching and research are entered into the analysis, both between and within the Nordic countries. The results of a second-stage analysis show that the most important explanatory variables are geographical location of the hospital and the share of discharges with a high case weight. However, a substantial amount of the variation in cost efficiency at the university hospital level remains unexplained.

Measuring cost efficiency in the Nordic hospitals--a cross-sectional comparison of public hospitals in 2002.

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of hospital care in four Nordic countries: Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Using national discharge registries and cost data from hospitals, cost efficiency in the production of somatic hospital care was calculated for public hospitals. Data were collected using harmonized definitions of inputs and outputs for 184 hospitals and data envelopment analysis was used to calculate Farrell efficiency estimates for the year 2002. Results suggest that there were marked differences in the average hospital efficiency between Nordic countries. In 2002, average efficiency was markedly higher in Finland compared to Norway and Sweden. This study found differences in cost efficiency that cannot be explained by input prices or differences in coding practices. More analysis is needed to reveal the causes of large efficiency disparities between Nordic hospitals.