Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Health Econ. 2024 Apr;33(4):779-803. doi: 10.1002/hec.4801. Epub 2024 Jan 10.
Norway's extended free choice (EFC) reform extends the patient's choice of publicly funded hospitals for treatment to authorized private institutions (EFC providers). We study the effects of the reform on waiting times, number of visits, and patients' Charlson Comorbidity Index scores in public hospitals. We use a difference-in-differences model to compare changes over time for public hospitals with and without EFC providers in the catchment area. Focusing on five prevalent somatic services, we find that the EFC reform did not exert pressure on public hospitals to stimulate shorter waiting times and more visits. Moreover, we do not find that the sum of public and private visits increased. When we compare patient comorbidity between public hospitals and EFC providers, we find that for non-invasive diagnostic services, patient comorbidity is lower in EFC providers. For surgical services, we detect no difference in patient comorbidities between public and EFC providers.
挪威的扩大自由选择(EFC)改革将患者在公立医院接受治疗的选择范围扩大到授权的私立机构(EFC 提供者)。我们研究了改革对公立医院等待时间、就诊次数和患者 Charlson 合并症指数评分的影响。我们使用差异中的差异模型来比较有和没有 EFC 提供者的公立医院在集水区内随时间的变化。我们专注于五种常见的躯体服务,发现 EFC 改革并没有对公立医院施加压力,以刺激缩短等待时间和增加就诊次数。此外,我们没有发现公共和私人就诊次数的总和增加。当我们比较公立医院和 EFC 提供者之间的患者合并症时,我们发现对于非侵入性诊断服务,EFC 提供者的患者合并症较低。对于手术服务,我们没有发现公立医院和 EFC 提供者之间的患者合并症有差异。