Härö A S
Health Policy. 1987;8(3):299-315. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(87)90006-6.
The responsibility of organizing and funding health services has in Finland been delegated to small local government units (to 461 communes, average pop. about 11,000), but not to counties or provinces like e.g. in other Nordic countries. PHC is organized by one or few communes and for the specialist level services they have formed 21 Central Hospital Regions (CHR). The central government pays per cent subsidies which are weighted on the basis of income of each community. In 1982 the average share of central government was 44.3% and the communes were responsible for 28.6% of the total expenditure. The national sickness insurance is subventing mainly private services. Its share was in 1982 about 11%. Direct personal costs were about 16%. There are no marked regional differences in the structure of services, e.g. the average share of inpatient care expenditure was 53% and the differences between regions small (z 6%). Total expenditure varied as indexes between regions from 82 tot 119. One reason is the high costs of some university hospitals which do not receive full compensation for services made available to other regions. The expenditure by region did not correlate at all with indicators of ageing. The same can be said of areal differences in income level. Only SMR, a crude indicator of the level of health, correlated positively with expenditure. It is concluded that the areal equity is acceptable if measured with expenditure. The general structure of services does not markedly differ between CHRs. The total health expenditure has been and will remain at the relatively low level of 6.5-7.0% of the GNP. The involvement of small communes is seen as a favourable basis of controlling the expenditure and developing an efficient service system.
在芬兰,组织和资助医疗服务的责任已下放给小型地方政府单位(461个公社,平均人口约11,000),而不像其他北欧国家那样下放到县或省。初级卫生保健由一个或几个公社组织,为专科层面的服务,它们组建了21个中央医院区(CHR)。中央政府按百分比提供补贴,补贴根据每个社区的收入加权计算。1982年,中央政府的平均份额为44.3%,公社负责总支出的28.6%。国家疾病保险主要补贴私人服务。1982年其份额约为11%。直接个人费用约为16%。服务结构没有明显的地区差异,例如住院护理支出的平均份额为53%,地区间差异较小(z 6%)。各地区的总支出指数从82到119不等。一个原因是一些大学医院成本高昂,其向其他地区提供服务未得到全额补偿。各地区的支出与老龄化指标完全不相关。收入水平的地区差异也是如此。只有作为健康水平粗略指标的标准化死亡比(SMR)与支出呈正相关。得出的结论是,如果以支出衡量,地区公平性是可以接受的。中央医院区之间的服务总体结构没有明显差异。卫生总支出一直并将保持在占国民生产总值6.5 - 7.0%的相对较低水平。小型公社的参与被视为控制支出和发展高效服务体系的有利基础。