Priority-setting in Finnish healthcare

Abstract

The characteristics which affect priority setting in the Finnish healthcare system include strong municipal (local) administration, no clear separation between producers and purchasers, a duality in funding, and the potential for physicians in public hospitals to practice in the private sector. This system has its strengths, such as the possibility to effectively co-ordinate social and healthcare services, and a strong incentive to take care of local needs, because of municipal responsibility to finance these services largely through local taxes. However, the municipalities are typically too small to take advantage of these potentials, their knowledge is scarce especially of secondary care and their negotiating power with respect to hospitals is low. Local politicians also have a dual role: they represent the needs of the local population but simultaneously they are decision-makers in hospitals. Full-time physicians are allowed to act in a dual role as well; they can run a private practice, which is paid for on a fee-for-service basis, while the hospital pays (mostly) a fixed monthly salary. The share of financing which flows from the National Sickness Insurance system to healthcare users may have adverse effects on the local use of resources. The broad national consensus statement on patient-level priorities did not reach any general rules on priorities. Strong support was given to citizens' equal right to access all healthcare services. In healthcare practice, this general rule has some exemptions. First, the reimbursement schemes for prescribed drugs vary depending on the severity and chronic nature of the disease. Secondly, the tax-financed dental services for the young are clearly prioritised over those of older citizens. In the consensus statement, emphasis was put on improving the efficiency of producing health services in order to avoid having to impose patient-level priorities.