the danish health care system: the consensus report
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Danish Health Care System: An Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
Kjeld Møller Pedersen, University of Southern Denmark
Mickael Bech, University of Southern Denmark
Karsten Vrangbæk, AKF Danish Institute of Governmental Research
The Consensus Report
![Page 2: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
TheDanishHealthCareSystem:AnAnalysisofStrengths,Weaknesses,OpportunitiesandThreats
KjeldMøllerPedersen,MickaelBech,KarstenVrangbæk ISBN - 978-87-92795-00-7
![Page 3: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2
TableofContents
TableofContents ................................................................................................................................2
Summary.............................................................................................................................................6
AsnapshotoftheDanishhealthsystem ..............................................................................................8
Framework........................................................................................................................................10
Overviewofchallenges(threats)andopportunities ..........................................................................12
Challenges .............................................................................................................................................12
Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................12
Overviewofstrengthsandweaknesses .............................................................................................13
Strengths ...............................................................................................................................................13
Weaknesses...........................................................................................................................................13
ObjectivesoftheDanishhealthsystem................................................................................................14
Solutions................................................................................................................................................15
Challenges.........................................................................................................................................16
Demographicdevelopment:Agingandstagnatingnumberofoccupationallyactive ..........................16
Themanpowersituation:shortage .......................................................................................................18
Fiscalsustainability:difficulttofinancethehealthsystemofthefuture .............................................18
Expendituredevelopment1999‐2008 ...............................................................................................18
Determinantsofgrowthinhealthexpenditures ...............................................................................20
Prognosisforhealthcareexpenditures .............................................................................................21
(In)equityissues ....................................................................................................................................24
Inequityinlifestyle/riskfactors ........................................................................................................27
Inequityinaccess ..............................................................................................................................29
Highexpectations..............................................................................................................................29
Globalization/Europeanizationofhealthcaremarkets&healthtourism...........................................31
![Page 4: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
3
Integrationofprivateprovidersandfinancingwithauniversalandcomprehensivepublichealthcare
systemandthecreationofalevelplayingfieldforcompetition..........................................................31
Opportunities....................................................................................................................................33
Personalizedmedicine ..........................................................................................................................34
Newtechnologies..................................................................................................................................35
Expectationsandcompetenciesofthepopulationparticipationandselfcare ....................................35
Strengths...........................................................................................................................................36
Patientrights .........................................................................................................................................36
Choiceandwaitingtimeguarantees.....................................................................................................36
Choiceofprimarycare ......................................................................................................................36
Choiceofhospitals.............................................................................................................................37
Highpatientsatisfactionandtrust ........................................................................................................37
Easyaccessinprimarycare,incl.gatekeeperrole ................................................................................38
(Reasonable)expenditurecontrol,includingefficiencyandreimbursementsystems .........................38
Introductionof‘packages’forcancerandcertaincardiacconditionsandfasttrackissue ..................39
Workinprogresson(coherent)patientpathways ...............................................................................40
Increasedfocusonpalliativecare/endoflifecare ...............................................................................40
Considerableinvestmentsinnewhospitals ..........................................................................................41
Strengtheningofpre‐hospitaltreatment/care .....................................................................................42
Qualityassuranceandmonitoring ........................................................................................................43
Wellfunctioningmulti‐leveldemocraticstructuresforintegrateddecisionmakingandimplementation.....................................................................................................................................46
Weaknesses ......................................................................................................................................47
Tensionswithinthedemocraticmultilevelgovernancestructure:Limitedvoterinterestandunclear
roleforpoliticiansatdecentralizedlevels.............................................................................................47
Ambivalencetowardsstrengtheningofpreventionandhealthpromotion .........................................48
Ambivalentattitudetowardsexplicitpoliticalprioritysetting..............................................................49
![Page 5: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
4
Tightbudgetsand/orwrongallocationandactivitybasedfinancing ...................................................50
Lifeexpectancyandhealthstatus .........................................................................................................51
Slowintroductionofnewtreatments? .................................................................................................53
Lackofvisionfornewhospitals,i.e.‘hospitalsofthefuture’andavisionforprimarycare ................55
Tooslowtakeupofthechroniccaremodel? .......................................................................................56
Cooperationbetweenmunicipalities–GPs–hospitals ........................................................................59
Lackoffocusonrehabilitation ..............................................................................................................59
Inequity .................................................................................................................................................60
Solutions ...........................................................................................................................................61
Whatisanaddedlifeyearworth? ........................................................................................................62
Telemedicine:Largescalepilotprojectsformonitoringthechronicallyill...........................................63
Proposal.............................................................................................................................................66
Methodsforprioritizationandproposalforaninstituteforprioritysettinganalyses .........................67
Co‐payment...........................................................................................................................................70
Co‐paymentinDenmarkandtheNordiccountries ..............................................................................70
Proposal.............................................................................................................................................71
Improveequityinhealth/useofhealthcare.........................................................................................73
Proposal.............................................................................................................................................74
Reducingthenumberofinfectionsandadverseevents.......................................................................75
Proposal.............................................................................................................................................75
Screeningfordiabetesandhealthcheckupingeneralpractice...........................................................76
Proposal.............................................................................................................................................76
Improvedpsychiatry..............................................................................................................................77
Proposals ...........................................................................................................................................77
Endoflife ..............................................................................................................................................78
Proposal.............................................................................................................................................80
![Page 6: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
5
Diagnosticcenters/fasttrackdiagnosingandevaluation .....................................................................80
Summaryforsolutions ..........................................................................................................................82
Endnotes ...........................................................................................................................................84
References ........................................................................................................................................94
![Page 7: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
6
SummaryTheorganizingframeworkforthisessayisananalysisofstrengthsandweaknessesoftheDanishhealth
systemalongwiththreats(challenges)andopportunities–aso‐calledSWOT‐analysis.Thisisfollowedby10proposals(‘solutions’)tothecombinedsetofissues.
Itiseasytocomeupwithproposalsthatwillincreasethebenefitscopeandlevelsofhealthservicesprovidedandhenceincreaseexpenditures.However,thewholepointoftheSWOTanalysisistoidentify
areasworthyofattackbecausetheythreatenthesustainabilityofthehealthsystemasweknowit,runcountertotheobjectivesofthesystem,e.g.equity,orareglaringweaknesses.RationaldecisionsaboutimprovementsmustbebasednotonlyonahelicopterviewofthehealthcaresystemviatheSWOT
analysis,butimprovementsmustbeselectedsothattheyhavethebiggestimpactpermonetaryunitexpended.Therefore,wheneverpossibleandrelevantithasbeenattemptedtoprovideaveryroughestimateofthecost‐benefitratioofparticularsolutions.NumerousreferencessupportboththeSWOT‐
analysisandthesolutionsectiontounderpinthefactualbasisofthereport.
Thethreemajorchallengesareinterrelated:1.Demography(aging,morechronicallyill),2.Themanpowersituation(adecliningworkforce),and3.Fiscalsustainabilityinviewofnotonlythedemographicdevelopmentbutalsothewelfareeffectofasteadilyincreasingincomelevel:Whengross
domesticproduct,GDP,increasesbyonepercent,healthexpendituresincreaseby1.2‐1.3%,hencegraduallycapturingagreatershareofGDP.Thefiscalchallengemaythreatenthetaxfinancedhealthsystem.Thequestionofmid‐andlong‐termsustainabilitywillrequireastrongpoliticalwilltoestablish
prioritieswithinverynarrowfiscallimits.Anotherconsiderablechallengeisrelatedto(in)equityinhealthoutcome(mortality/lifeexpectancyandmorbidity).Asregardsinequityinhealthoutcomeit
shouldberememberedthatitisinfluencedbymanyotherfactorsotherthanthehealthcaresystem,forinstancetheworkenvironment.‐Yetanotherchallengerelatestorisingexpectationsaboutwhatcanandshouldbeprovidedbythehealthcaresystem(freeatthepointofuse).
Ontheopportunitysidenewtreatmentsareatthecoreofattention,inparticularopportunitiesthatat
oneandthesametimeprovidebettertreatmentanddonotincreasecosts(verymuch).Telemedicineisanexample.Thepotentialisconsiderable,butthecost‐savingpotentialremainstobedemonstratedconvincingly.‐Thehospitalinvestmentplanprovidesanopportunityforrethinkingthehospitalofthe
future,logisticsetc.
Patientrights,freechoice,ahighdegreeofpatientsatisfaction,theambitioushospitalinvestmentplan,productivitygains,andqualitymonitoringareexamplesofstrengthsoftheDanishhealthcaresystem.Ontheweaknesssideambivalencetowardspreventionandhealthpromotion,possiblytooslow
introductionofnewtreatments,ambivalencetowardsexplicitprioritysetting,lowlifeexpectancy,andaneedforimprovedcooperationbetweenhospitals,GPs,andthemunicipalitiescanbementioned.
The10chosensolutionsinthetablebelowarechosenbasedonhowwelltheytakentogetheraddressthechallengesandtheweaknessesidentifiedintheSWOT‐analysis.Asnotedaboveveryrough
estimatesofthecost‐benefitratioformostofthesolutionshavebeenincludedintherighthand
![Page 8: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
7
column.Theyarenotbasedondetailedcalculations–andinthecaseofsolution10(diagnosticcenters)
itreallyisaguesstimate.
Solution ThesolutionaddressesthefollowingSWOT‐elementsand
objectives
Cost‐benefitratioand/orcostsperqualityadjustedlife
years,QALY
1. Increaseduseoftelemedicine:
Projectwithbrief‐casefortele‐monitoring/advisingthechronicallyill
Demographicchallenge(the
chronicallyill),thefiscalchallengeandpopulationexpectations
CBAratio1:1‐2
2. Cost‐effectivepreventiveactivities/healthpromotion:
HealthtestsandhealthconsultationsadmodumEbeltoft
Demographicchallenge(thechronicallyill)andthelowlife
expectancy
CBA‐ratio:1:26(anet‐benefitperparticipantofDKK
26,000)
3. Hospitalpalliativecare–hospiceatendoflife
Demographicchallengeandthepopulation’sexpectations
Cost‐minimizationanalysispointstopalliative
care/hospicecare
4. Improveequityinhealth/useofhealthcare
Inequityissues SomewhatmeaninglesstodevelopaCBA‐ratio
5. NationalInstituteforPrioritySetting,NIPS,Methodsfor(explicit)prioritysetting
Fiscalchallengeandlegitimacyofthepublichealthcaresystem
CBA‐ratio:atleast1:1andmostlikely1:>1
6. Expensivemedicine Institutionforprioritysetting CBA‐ratio:atleast1:1andmostlikely1:>1
7. Reducingthenumberofinfectionsandadverseevents’
Fiscalchallengeandqualityofcare
CBA‐ratio:atleast1:17
8. Co‐payment Fiscalchallenge CBA‐ratio:1:13
9. Improvedpsychiatrictreatment/care
Weakness,psychiatryhasfallenbehind
FordepressionthecostsperQALYrangesfrom$15‐35,000
‐whichis‘goodvalue’.Nocost‐benefitratiohasbeenestimated.
10. Diagnosticcenters/fasttrackdiagnosing
Accessandcoherentpatientpathways
GuesstimateCBA‐ratio:1:1andlikely1:>1
![Page 9: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
8
AsnapshotoftheDanishhealthsystemADuringatypicalyearalmostallDanesusehealthcareservices1:
• in200690%ofthepopulationusedhealthservicesi.e.consultedaGP,washospitalized,usedhospitaloutpatientservicesetc.
Comparedtomostotherpublicservices,healthcareisusedthroughoutlife,notjustsomestageoflife
likeschoolsornursinghomes.Thisinturnmeansthateverybodyisaffectedbyhowwellthehealthsystemworks.Inopinionpollsabouthighconcernpoliticaltopicshealthcarealwaysratesamongthetopfive.
Theservicesareprovidedbyahealthworkforceofabout2102,000fulltimeequivalents–about4%of
thetotalworkforce.
Publicexpenditureforhealthcareprovidedbyhospitals,GPs,etc.anddrugsin2008was2:
• Dkr.18,100percitizens(publicexpenditures)peryearofwhichDkr.13,500isusedforhospitalservicesperyear
• TheaverageDaneprivatelypaysDkr.4,100peryearoutofpocket(co‐payment)
• Totalhealthexpenditureshaveincreasedannuallyby2.8%inrealtermsforthepast10years
• InternationallytheDanishspendinglevelandgrowthrateislow.
Patientsexpressahighdegreeofsatisfactionwithhospitalcare.The2009surveyofabout70,000hospitalizedpatientsand160,000outpatientsshowed3
• that90%ofhospitalizedpatientsfoundtheoverallexperienceeitherverygoodorgood
• that95%ofpatientsreceivingambulatoryhospitalcarefoundtheoverallexperienceeither
verygoodorgood.
PatientsatisfactionwithGPsisalsohigh(StatensInstitutforFolkesundhed,2011):
• 89%wereveryorsomewhatsatisfied–satisfactionincreasingwithage
Waitingtimeforelectivesurgeryforthemostcommon17operations,e.g.hipandkneereplacement,cataract,hernia,andkidneystone4isrelativelylowcomparedtoothertaxfinancedhealthsystems:
• anexperiencedaveragetimeof63days(calculatedJanuary–August2010)
Theextendedfreehospitalchoicegivescitizenstherighttouseprivatelyrunfacilitiesfreeofchargeif
waitingtimeatpublichospitalsexceedsonemonth.Fromfourthquarter2009tothirdquarter2010
A The200+referencesappearintwoformats:themajorityappearassuperscripts,butanumberappearinroundedbrackets,e.g.(Jensen2011).Theformerarefoundunder‘Endnotes’whilethelatterarelistedalphabeticallyunder‘References’.
![Page 10: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
9
• about123,000usedthischoice
Apossiblesideeffectofhospitalizationishospitalacquiredinfections,e.g.woundinfections.In2009‐
2010closetooneofevery10hospitalizedpatientshadahospitalacquiredinfection5
• aprevalenceofbetween8.2–10.1%forhospitalacquiredinfections.
Thereportingsystemforadverseevents/unintendedconsequencesinconnectionwithhospitaltreatmentin2009received
• about25,000reportsfromtheregions–ofwhich1.3%weregradedasveryserious
Lifeexpectancyisofteninterpretedasasuccessmeasureforahealthsystem.Lifeexpectancyisinfluencedbymanyotherthingsthantheconsumptionofhealthcareservices,forinstancelifestyle.
Thissaid,however:
• LifeexpectancyforDanishmalesandfemalesisamongthelowestamongtheEuropeanOECDcountries.
Itisdifficulttopassjudgmentonhowwellahealthsystemisworking.Inpartbecausetheunderlyingobjectivesonwhichtoevaluatethesystemmaydifferacrossdifferentparties,inpartbecausethere
shouldbesomebasisforcomparison,e.g.othercountriesoraclearlydelimitedbaseline,andindependentobservers.
Inthe2008OECDSurveyofDenmark6achapterof57pageswasdedicatedtoanevaluationofthe
healthsystemandimportantchallenges.Thesummarywasclear:
“Overthepastfewyears,theDanishhealthsystemhasimproved.Yetwhenlookingahead,furtherpressuresshouldbeexpectedfromnewcostlymedicaltechnologiesexpandingtherangeofconditionsthatcanbetreated,aswellasfromcontinueddemandforshorterwaitingtimes
andcarethatrespondstoindividualneeds.Managinghealthcarespendingmaywellbethelargestfiscalchallengeoverthecomingdecades.Sustaininguniversalpublichealthinsurancefinancedbygeneraltaxationshouldbefeasible,butitwillrequirecontinuedeffortstoenhance
efficiencyviaorganizationaladjustments,refinedeconomicincentivesandtheadoptionofcost‐savingtreatmentpractices.Atthesametime,promotinghealthynutritionandlifestylesshouldhavehigherpriority,andthesystemasawholeshouldbemoreengagedinhelpingtoprevent
peoplewithhealthproblemsendingupbeingexcludedfromthelabourmarket.”(p.123).
TheMinistryofHealthinFebruary2010publishedanin‐houseproducedbenchmarkingoftheDanishhospitalsystem7.Thecomparisonwasmadevis‐à‐vissevenEuropeancountries:Sweden,Norway,
Finland,theUK,Germany,theNetherlandsandFrance.Itwasconcludedthat
“Generally,thebenchmarkingstudyshowsthattheDanishhospitalsectorperformswellinmostareascomparedwiththesevencountriesinthepublicationandwiththeaverageoftheOECDcountries.WithrespecttoDenmark,itshouldbeunderlinedthataccesstohealthcareisgood
![Page 11: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
10
withrelativelyshortwaitingtimes,andthatDenmarkhasthelowestproportionofcitizenswho
experienceunmetneedsformedicalexaminationamongthecountriesbenchmarked.Intheareaofheartdiseasetreatmentthequalityishigh,whereasDenmarkperformslesswellintheareaofcancertreatment.”(p.5)
FrameworkThebriefforthisanalysissaysthattheauthorshavetodeveloppossibleandrealisticsolutionstothe
problemsandchallengesthattheDanishhealthcarewillfaceoverthecomingyears.Ithasbeenindicatedthatabout10‘solutions’shouldbedeveloped.Theproposalsshouldnotbenarrow,e.g.onlyfocusingonhospitalsorgeneralpractice,butcoverimportantdimensionsofhealthcare.However,in
ordertocomeupwithtimelyandrelevantsolutionsitisnecessarytosketchsomeofthechallengestheDanishhealthcaresystemfacesoverthenextcoupleofdecades.TothisendaSWOTanalysiswillbedeveloped.
SWOTanalysesarenotnew.Forinstance,afewyearsbackagroupofforeignscholarsvisitedDenmark
andundertookaSWOT‐analysisoftheDanishHealthCareSystemasof1998/19998.ASWOTanalysisisastrategicplanningmethodusedtoevaluatetheStrengths,Weaknesses,Opportunities,andThreatsforanorganization–orinthiscase,thewholehealthcaresystem.Itinvolvesspecifyingtheobjectives
ofthebusinessunit/healthcaresystemandidentifyinginternalandexternalfactorsthatarefavorableandunfavorabletoachievingthesystemobjectives,namelySWOT.
Thefourletterscover:
Strengths:areinternalcharacteristicsofthebusinessorthesystem.Ideallyitshouldbecomparedto
othersystemstogainanimpressionoftherelativestrength.However,thiscomparativeaspectwillonlybetoucheduponmarginallyinthefollowing..
Weaknesses:areinternalcharacteristicsthatneedtobeaddressed.
Opportunities:externalchancestomakegreatersalesorprofitsintheenvironment.
Threats:externalelementsintheenvironmentthatcouldcausetroubleforthebusiness/healthsystem.
IdentificationofSWOTsisessentialbecausesubsequentstepsintheprocessofplanningforachievementoftheselectedobjectiveideallyshouldbederivedfromtheSWOTs.
ThefigurebelowshowshowtheSWOT‐analysiscanbeturnedinto(strategic)solutionsbydeveloping
adequateandrelevantresponsestothefourSWOTdimensions.Italsoclarifiesinalogicalmannerwhichproblemsspecificsolutionsareaimedat.Insomecasesathreat,e.g.afiscalexternalthreatmayactuallyblockothersolutions.Ifthegrowthrateinhealthexpendituresisconstrained,ittoa
considerableextentlimitssometypesofsolutions,namelythosethatrequireanexpansionoftheoverallhealthbudget.
![Page 12: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
11
Table1:CombinedSWOTanalysisandproposedsolutions(1…Nmeansitems/topics)
Internalcharacteristics
Strengths(S)
1...N
Weaknesses(W)
1...NOpportunities(O)
1...N
(SO)Solutions
1...N
(WO)Solutions
1...N
External
characteristics
Threats(T)
1...N
(ST)Solutions
1...N
(WT)Solutions
1...N
Ofcourseitisonlyaframework.Insomecaseswewilldeviatefromit,forinstancebecausesomesolutionsbothfurtherdeveloppositionsofstrengthandalleviateweaknessesorthatsomethreatsoropportunitiesmaybeinternalandnotexternal.
TheSWOTanalysistakesplacewithinthe(figurative)frameworkofthefigurebelow:
InthespaceallocatedforthepresentanalysisonlysomeoftheareasshowninFigure1willbetouched
upon.
![Page 13: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
12
Overviewofchallenges(threats)andopportunities
Challengesa) demographicdevelopment(elderly,morechronicallyill)
b) lifestyleinducedillnessesinthewelfaresocietyandequityissues
c) fiscalchallenges;inpartduetothedemographicchallenge.–Theoverarchingissueisthelong‐termsustainabilityofataxfundedhealthsystem
d) manpowershortageandthechallengeofeducatingandrecruitingstaffwiththerightmixof
knowledgeandskillsinallpartsofthesystem
e) inequityinaccess,utilizationofservice,andinhealthoutcome
f) highexpectationsinthepopulationandsustaininglegitimacyandtrustofthepublicinthehealthsysteminthelongrun
g) globalization/Europeanizationofhealthcaremarkets&healthtourism
h) howtointegrateprivateprovidersandfinancingwithinauniversalandcomprehensivepublichealthcaresystemandhowtocreatealevelplayingfieldforcompetition.
Opportunitiesi) newtreatments,e.g.personalizedmedicine..
j) newtechnology,e.g.telemedicine,digitalinfrastructure(EPR,patientmanagement,qualityassessment)ortransitionto(more)ambulatorycare
k) expectationsandcompetenciesofthepopulationparticipationandselfcare
l) redesignofworkprocessesinthewholehealthsystem(inpartduetothefiscalpressure,butalsoduetonewhospitalfacilities).Fasttrackprocedures,patientpathways
m) ‘hospitalofthefuture’–newhospitalfacilitiesandorganizationsalongwith‘primarycareof
thefuture’.
n) Interactionwithprivatesector(businessandNGO)fordevelopmentofneworganizationalforms,medicalpracticesandtechnologies
![Page 14: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
13
OverviewofstrengthsandweaknessesStrengthsandweaknessesisaslidingscaleandclassificationofparticularphenomenadependsonthe
‘cut‐off’pointonthisscale.Furthermore,strengthsandweaknessesarerelativeconceptsandthereforerequiresomekindofbaseofcomparison.HeretheobjectivesoftheDanishhealthcaresystemareused.
Strengthsa) qualityassurancesystem(almost)inplace,including‘unintendedconsequences’
b) (apparently)goodtreatmentquality(NIP)(butlimitedevidenceforrelativeperformance
comparedtoothercountries)
c) patientrights
d) highpatientsatisfaction
e) easyaccessinprimarycare
f) freehospitalchoice–andlowwaitingtime
g) (reasonable)expenditurecontrol
h) introductionof‘packages’forcancerandcertaincardiacconditions
i) workinprogresson(coherent)patientpathways
j) increasedfocusonpalliativecare/endoflifecare
k) considerableinvestmentsinnewhospitals
l) strengtheningofpre‐hospitaltreatment/care
m) balanceofpublic‐private(providesanopportunitytodiscuss‘privatization’)
n) reasonablywellfunctioningmulti‐leveldemocraticstructuresforintegrateddecisionmakingandimplementation
o) averyeffectivegeneralpracticesectorandareasonablewellorganizedprimarycaresectorin
general
Weaknessesa) lowlifeexpectancy
b) (too)slowintroductionofnewtreatments
c) ambivalencetowardsstrengtheningofprevention/healthpromotion
d) ambivalentattitudetowardsexplicitprioritysetting
![Page 15: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
14
e) tooslowintroductionofthechroniccaremodel
f) lackofvisionfornewhospitals,i.e.‘hospitalsofthefuture’,andprimarycareofthefuture
g) tootightbudgets(?).
h) haspsychiatryinadvertentlybeenleftabitbehind?(fairlylowgrowthratecomparedto
somatichospitalcare)
i) cooperationbetweenmunicipalities–GPs–hospitals
j) lackoffocusonrehabilitation
k) cooperationwith/integrationofprivatedeliveryorganizationsandthecreationofalevelplayingfieldforcompetition
l) relativelypoorresultsinsomeareas(e.g.breastandcolorectalcancer)
m) introductionofABFandothernewincentivestendtoweakenexpenditurecontrol
n) tensionswithinthedemocraticmultilevelgovernancestructure:Limitedvoterinterestandunclearroleforpoliticiansatdecentralizedlevels.
o) Somegeographicaldifferencesinaccesstohealthcare
p) Misc.inequityissues
ObjectivesoftheDanishhealthsystemAsmentionedearliertheSWOT‐elementsshouldbeevaluatedinthelightoftheobjectivesofthehealthcaresystem.TheHealthActof2007consolidatedanumberofexistingactsandwaspassedbytheFolketinget(theDanishParliament)andhencecanbeconsideredastheofficiallystatedobjectives
ofDanishhealthcare.
IntheHealthActof2007thefirsttwoarticlessetouttheobjectivesoftheDanishhealthcaresystem.Atthegeneralleveltheoverallobjectiveistoimprovepopulationhealthandattheindividualleveltopreventandtreatillnessandalleviatesufferingandfunctionalrestrictions.Article2ismorespecific:
• easyandequalaccesstohealthcare,
• treatmentofhighquality
• coherentandlinkedservices
• freechoiceofhealthcareprovider
• easyaccesstoinformation
• atransparenthealthcaresystem
![Page 16: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
15
• shortwaitingtimefortreatment.
SolutionsSolutionsshouldbedevelopedsothattheyaddressrelevantSWOT‐elementsandfurthermoreshould
contributetofulfillmentofthesystemobjectivesabove,cf.thetableabovewiththestrategiccontentoftheSWOT.
Solution ThesolutionaddressesthefollowingSWOT‐elementsandobjectives
1. Increaseduseoftelemedicine Demographicchallenge(thechronicallyill),thefiscalchallengeandthepopulation’sexpectations
2. Cost‐effectivepreventiveactivities/healthpromotion/healthpromotionintheworkplace
Demographicchallenge(thechronicallyill)andthelowlifeexpectancy
3. Hospitalpalliativecare–hospiceatendoflife Demographicchallengeandthepopulation’sexpectations
4. Improveequityinhealth/useofhealthcare Inequityissues
5. Methodsfor(explicit)prioritysetting Fiscalchallengeandlegitimacyofthe
publichealthcaresystem
6. Expensivemedicine Institutionforprioritysetting
7. Reducingthenumberofinfectionsandadverseevents’
Fiscalchallengeandqualityofcare
8. Co‐payment Fiscalchallenge
9. Improvedpsychiatrictreatment/care Weakness,psychiatryhasfallenbehind
10. Diagnosticcenters/fasttrackdiagnosing Accessandcoherentpatientpathways
![Page 17: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
16
ChallengesThebiggestchallengefacingtheDanishhealthsystemisthedemographicdevelopment.Ithasbeenrecognizedforthepast10‐15years,butreallyfirstcameintofocusinthenewmillenium9,10.If
overlooked,observerswillnotunderstandthedilemmasandtheneedforchangefacingthehealthsystemoverthenext1–2decades.Assuchitconcernsthewholesociety,butherewelimitourselvestotheramificationsforhealthcare:
• Expenditureconsequencesofanincreasingnumberofelderlyandincreasedlifeexpectancy
• Manpowersituation
• Financing:erodingtaxbaseforincometaxationwhichisthemainsourceoffinancingforthe
healthsystem
Demographicdevelopment:AgingandstagnatingnumberofoccupationallyactiveThereistruthtothesayingthatinthelongrunwearealldead.However,inordertobuildasustainablehealthsystemwehavetotakestockofimportantfuturedevelopments.Thedemographicdevelopmentprobablyisthemostimportant,andevenifwelook30‐40yearsintothefuturewecannothopefor
reversalsofthepredictedtrends.Itmayappearabstracttolookjust20‐30yearsintothefuture,butcurrentwoesinthehealthsystemwillworsenifnocorrectiveactionistaken.
Figure1:Development1992‐2060forthreeage
groups:0‐14(blue),80+(green)and+65(red)
Figure2:Development1992‐2060forthe
occupationallyactive(15‐64,redlineatthetop)andoccupationallyinactive(0‐14,65+)
Source:DREAMmodel(Hansen,2010)
![Page 18: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
17
Figure1illustratesthedevelopmentforthreeagegroupsfrom1992anduntil2060.Overthenext30yearsthenumberofpersons65yearsofageandabovewillincreaseinabsolutetermsbyapprox.400,000persons.
Ifwelookatthe80+yeargroupinisolation,thisgroupwillincreasebyapprox.200,000overthesame
period.TheDanishpopulationisintruthaging.Forhealthandsocialservicesthisingeneraltermsimpliesanincreasingneedfortreatment,nursing,andsupport.Thegroupwithchronicdiseaseswillincreasebecausetheincidenceofanumberofdiseasesincreaseswithage,i.e.diabetes,cardiovasculardiseases,
rheumaticdiseasesetc.Manywillhaveseveraldiseases,socalledco‐morbidities.Thehealthsystemwillhavetodevelopcopingstrategiesnowandinthecourseoffewyears.
Atthesametime,however,theoccupationallyactivegroup,traditionallydefinedastheagegroup15‐64)isslightlydeclining,Figure2.Hence,withastagnatingordecreasingworkforcethehealthsystematthesame
facesanincreasingneedformanpower.Therearealsoeconomicramificationsofthis.
Thedemographicsupportfractiondefinedasthenumberofoccupationallyinactive(0‐14,64+)dividedbythenumberofoccupationallyactive(15‐65)isakeyfigure.Inawelfaresystemlargelybasedon‘pay‐asyougo’wherethisyear’staxespayforthisyear’sexpenses,e.g.healthcare,oldagepensions,andnursing
homes,thedevelopmentinthisfractionisofgreateconomicimportance.Thisisduetothesimplefactthatthemaincontributorstotaxincomearetheoccupationallyactive.
Measuredthisway,todaywehaveasituationwheretwooccupationallyactivepersons’support’oneoccupationallyinactiveperson,afractionof0.50.However,around2040therewilllikelybefour
occupationallyactivetosupportthreeoccupationallyinactive,afractionofcloseto0.75.
Lifeexpectancywillincreasesteadilyinthecomingyears.ThelatestavailableprojectionsarepresentedinFigure3and4formalesandfemalesrespectively.
Figure3:Lifeexpectancy,males
Source:DREAMModel(Hansen,2010)
Figure4:Lifeexpectancy,females
![Page 19: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
18
Theimportanceoflifeexpectancyisthatthelongerpeoplelive,thelongerthey–orsomeofthem–needhealthandsocialcare.
Themanpowersituation:shortageWithastagnatingworkforcetherewillbeageneralshortagesituationinthelabormarket–despitecurrentunemployment–andhenceintensecompetitionforexistingandfuturemanpower.Lookedatfrom
anarrowhealthsystemperspectivetheshortagesituationcanbeoutlinedasfollows:
By2015theshortagewillbeabout12‐14%ofthecurrentworkforceandaround2020theshortagewillhavegrownto15‐16%.For2015theexpectedshortageinabsolutenumberswillbe12,13:
• nursingassistants,about5,700
• nurses,about5,600
• physicians,about2,600
Thisiscalculatedbasedonunchangeddemand,andonlythreekeygroupshavebeenmentioned.Therewillmostlikelybeshortagesinotherareas.Hence,thenumberislikelytobehigher.Fornursingassistantsand
nursesitshouldberecalledthatthereiscompetitionfromnursinghomesandhomenursing,whereashortageakintotheonedescribedwillmostlikelyalsobecomevisible.
Thissituationwillmostlikelysetinmotionanumberofactivities:1.Makinghealthcareanattractiveworkplace,inparttoretain,inparttorecruit,2.probablywagepressure,3.internallyathospitalsitislikelyto
increasethefocusintwoareas:redesigningworkflowand‘taskshifting’,i.e.thatnursingassistantstakeoversomenursingtasks,nursestakeoversomephysiciantasksinordertomakesurethatcorecompetenciesareputtoeffectiveuse–becauseitiseasierintheshorttomediumtermtorecruitandtrain
nursingassistantsandnursescomparedtophysicianspecialists,4.asconcernsgeneralpracticeinnovativeorganizationalmodelswill/mustbedeveloped.
Fiscalsustainability:difficulttofinancethehealthsystemofthefutureLikewithmanpowerthequestionofshort‐,mid‐termandlong‐termfinancingofthehealthsystemisrootedinthedemographicdevelopment.Therearetwosourcesthattogetherwillcreateafiscalchallenge
ofconsiderablesize:Agingcombinedwithincreasedlifeexpectancyandthestagnatingworkforceandinconsequencehereof,a(partial)erosionofthetaxableincomebase.OntopofthisthecurrentcrisisandEUrulesconcerning‘allowable’deficitofpublicfinances,namelyamaximumof3%ofGDP(grossdomestic
product),roughlythevalueoftheproductiveoutput,willstrainthefiscalsustainability.
Expendituredevelopment19992008Thefollowingkeynumberscapturetheexpendituredevelopmentoverthepast10years14:
• overallannualgrowthrateperyear1999‐2008inrealterms(correctedforinflation):2.8%
• theannualgrowthrateforhospitalexpendituresperyear1999‐2008:3,3%
• thegrowthrateforpsychiatryhasbeenverylow,atotalofabout5%from2000to200812.
![Page 20: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
19
• theannualgrowthrateforprimarycare(GPs,practicingphysicianspecialists,physiotherapistsetc.)peryear1999‐2008:4.1%
• theannualgrowthrateofdrugsexpenditureperyear:5.1%
Inotherwords,steadyandcontinualgrowth–despitetheimpressiononegetsfromthenewsthat‘savings’havebeentheorderoftheday.Whetherthegrowthrateshavebeensufficient,howeverdefined,is
anothermattertobediscussedlater.
Internationallythegrowthrateisamongthelowestifcomparedtocountriesweoftencompareourselvesto.ItisacommonprocedureforinternationalcomparisonstolookatexpendituresaspercentageofGDP(grossdomesticproduct).Figure5and6togetherpaintapictureofDenmarkbeinga‘fairlylowspender’
(figure5)anda‘lowgrowthrate’country(figure6).
Figure5:HealthexpendituresaspercentageofGDP1970‐200714
Notes:1.Kvartilistheexpenditureinthe¼lowestspendingcountriesinOECDwhereas3.Kvartilisthe
¼highestspendingcountriesonhealthcareasapercentageofGDP
FrombeingwellabovetheOECDaverageDenmarktodayisonlyslightlyabove.BasicallythismeansthattheDanishgrowthratehasbeenslowerthaninmanyotherOECDcountries,Figure6.
Thereareseveralcontradictoryinterpretationsofthesenumbers.Ontheonehand,thatcostcontainmenthasbeensuccessfulinDenmark.Ontheotherhandanalternativeinterpretationisthatthehealthsystem
hasbeenunderfunded–atleastcomparedtoothercountries.Bothextremesareprobablybiasedtowardsfittinginwithcertaininterests.Beforepassingjudgment,severalquestionsmustbeclarified,andafterthatitwillstillbedifficulttopassjudgment:Typesandscopeoftreatmentsoffered;howefficientlythehealth
systemoperates(howmanyserviceslikebeddays,hospitalization,GPconsultationsareprovidedpermillionDkr.),andwhataretheadministrativecostsofrunningthesystem.Itisdifficulttoanswerthesequestions,anduntilthenitisprobablybesttotaketheinformationinFigure5and6asinteresting‘facts’
withoutgoingintotoomuchinterpretation.
![Page 21: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
20
Figure6:GrowthintheGDP‐percentagegoingtohealthexpenditurescomparedto1970‐level14
DeterminantsofgrowthinhealthexpendituresWhatdeterminesgrowthinhealthcareexpenditures?Averygeneral,butsomewhatsuperficial
explanation,istonotenotonlythathealthexpendituresgrowwhenGDPgrows,butthatindevelopedcountriesthegrowthrateofhealthexpendituresexceedsthatofGDP.Figure7showsthisclearly.Nocountryisbelowthe45‐degreeline,showinganoverproportionalgrowthrateforhealthcare
expenditures.
Economistsexpressthisphenomenoninthefollowingway:WhenGDPgrowsby1%,healthexpendituresgrowbymorethan1%.Overthepast15yearsthis‘additionalgrowth’,aswecallitlater,hasbeen0.3%,i.e.healthexpendituresgrowby1.3%whenGDPgrowby1%.
Onewayofcharacterizingthiswouldbetoocallit‘welfareeffect’,inthatitisnotassuchdrivenbyfor
instancedemographicdevelopmentbutbyincreasingincomelevels.Thereasoninggoesasfollows:Aswegetricher,wewanttospendmoreonhealthcare.However,asanexplanationthisisnotverysatisfactory.Somepremisesshouldbeintroduced,forinstancethatovertimethepossibilitiesfornewtreatmentsare
increasingrapidly,i.e.treatmentavailability,alongwithanapparentlyincreasingpoliticalwillingnesstopayintaxfinancesystems.However,fewanalysesareavailablethatshowthisindetail.
Figure7:AnnualrealgrowthratepercapitainhealthexpendituresandGDP,1970‐200614
![Page 22: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
21
InviewofhowtaxfinancefundingofhealthcareinDenmarkandothercountries,namelytaxfinanced,oneshouldstressthatthisdevelopmentisa‘willed’developmentinthesensethatithasbeenpoliticallyapproved.However,itdoesnotmeanthatthereistotalpoliticalcontroloverthedevelopment.Oftenthe
developmentisconsidered‘inevitable’,i.e.itseemsimpossibletosaynotointroduceanewandproventreatmentthatatthesametimeincreasescosts.Tocontaincostsinvolvesprioritysettingandalsoaviewtotheoverallmacroeconomy,i.e.whatisthe‘fiscalhealth’ofthenation.
PrognosisforhealthcareexpendituresTurningtothefuture,futuregrowthinhealthexpenditurescanbedividedintoademographiccomponent(overallagingofthepopulation,longerlifeexpectancy,andpossiblychangedmorbiditypattern)andanon‐
demographiccomponent(increasingwelfare,newtreatments,anddevelopmentinproductivity…the‘addedgrowth’componentmentionedabove).
Thepointofdepartureforthedemographiccomponentistheaveragepublichealthexpendituresperperson.Thisisshowninfigure7.Averageannualexpendituresvaryconsiderablyacrossthelifecycle.From
aroundtheageof60thereisastrongincrease.The‘top’aroundtheageof30ismainlyduetowomengivingbirthtochildren.
Basedonanumberofassumptions,forinstance’healthyaging’tobediscussedlater,thefuturedevelopmentinpublichealthexpenditures,i.e.privateexpendituresthatamounttoaround16‐17%of
totalexpendituresarenotincluded),areshowninfigure8,indexedatthe2008level.
Severalscenariosareshownfromthemostconservative(noincreaseinlifeexpectancyovertheperiod)toanadded‘additionalgrowth’(welfareeffects)duetoincreasedwealthupto0.6%peryear.
Figure7:Averagepublicexpendituresperperson,year200015
![Page 23: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
22
Intheanalyses‘Additionalgrowth’isdefinedasnon‐demographicgrowthoverandaboveproductivitygrowthintheeconomy(i.e.overgrowthinGDP),wherethescenariowith0.3%additionalgrowthisanaverageoftheexperienceoverthepast15yearsasmentionedearlier.
Withinthenexttwodecadespubliclyfinancedhealthexpenditureswillincreasewithbetweenan(unlikely)
20%andamorelikely35%inrealterms.Tothisshouldbeaddedanincreaseinsocialexpendituresofapp.13%undertheassumptionof0.3%additionalgrowth.
Figure8:Prognosisfordevelopmentinfuturehealthexpenditures,indexedat1000in2008.
TheEconomicCouncilnotesthattheuncertaintyoftheprognosisisconsiderable.However,thegreatestuncertaintyisaboutthe‘additionalgrowth’,notthedemographiccomponent.‘Additionalgrowth’depends
amongotherthingsonpoliticalprioritysettingandthewilltocarryoutprioritysetting.Inadditiontheassumptionsabout‘additionalgrowth’arecrucialwhenlookingatfiscalsustainabilitydiscussedbelow.
Anotheruncertaintyisabout‘healthaging’thatissofteningtheeconomicconsequencesofthedemographicchangesconsiderably.Thedemographicallydeterminedhealthexpendituresdependonaging
andproximitytodeath(reflectingwhatistermedterminalcostsofdying).Whenlifeexpectancyincreases,theterminalcostsarepostponed,i.e.occurbydefinitionlaterinlife,andtheincreasesinhealthexpenditurethatfollowfromlongerlifeexpectancyarenotaslargeastheincreaseinthenumberof
elderlypersonswouldsuggest.Thisphenomenonisreferredtoas“healthyageing”15.ArnbjergandBjørner,whosecalculationsunderlietheabove,foundthatbasedontheempiricalestimatesfortheperiod2000‐2007,seefigure9,thathealthyagingisexpectedtoreducetheimpactofincreasedlifeexpectancyonreal
healthexpendituresby50percentcomparedtoasituationwithouthealthyageing.TheEconomicCouncilsgivestheexampleofan85yearoldwomaninyear2050.Comparedtoan85yearoldwomenin2006her2050counterpartwillhavehealthexpendituresthatare13%lower(simplybecauseshedieslaterdueto
increasedlifeexpectancyandhenceattheageof85is‘healthier’andusefewerhealthservicesthanher
![Page 24: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
23
2006counterpart).Itisobviousthattotheextenttheassumptionsabouthealthagingdonotholdup,thentheexpendituregrowthwillbe(considerably?)higherthatindicatedabove.
Figure9:Averagehealthexpendituresin2000forpersonswithdifferenttimedistancetodeath11
Thegrowthratesdepictedinfigure8,apartfromthelowestcurve,meanthathealthexpenditureswillgrowfasterthantheeconomy(growthinGDP).Thequestioniswhatthismeansforfiscalsustainability.
Fiscalsustainabilityisbasicallythemediumandlongrunbalanceofoverallpublicfinancemustbalance,i.e.thatincomeandexpenditureshould‘equal’eachother(inthelongrun).HansenandPedersen11findsthat
fiscalsustainabilityisrobustwithrespecttogrowthinhealthcareexpendituresduetofutureincreasesinlifeexpectancy.Thisisaconsequenceofhealthyageingandtheindexationofthestatutoryretirementagetolifeexpectancythatfollowsfromthe2006‐welfarereform.Fiscalsustainabilityremainsverysensitiveto
non‐demographicfactors:Anincreaseinnon‐demographic(‘additionalgrowth)expendituregrowthof0.3pct.inexcessoftheproductivitygrowthincreasesthefiscalsustainabilityproblemby2.1pct.ofGDP.Doublingtheexpendituregrowthrelativetoproductivitygrowthto0.6pct.increasesthefiscal
sustainabilityproblemby4.8pct.ofGDP.ThesenumbersshouldalsobeseeninthelightofEUfiscalrulesofamax.deficitof3%ofGDP.Thismeansthathealthcarealonecouldthreatenthisobjective.
TheEconomicCouncilhashighernumbersthanHansenandPedersen.With‘additionalgrowth’of0.3%peryearthecouncilconcludesthatthiswillleadtoasustainabilityproblemof3.0%ofGDP,equivalentto54
billionDkr.measuredin2009Dkr,andwith‘additionalgrowth’of0.6thisincreasesto5.7%ofGDPwhichisequivalentto102billionDkr.in2009DKr.
HansenandPedersen–andalongwiththemtheEconomicCouncil‐concludethatthecurrentgrowthinnon‐demographic(‘additionalgrowth)healthcareexpendituresof0,3%cannotbemaintained/sustained
![Page 25: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
24
foraprolongedperiodwithoutchallengingthepublicfinancingofhealthcareexpendituresinDenmark.Ontheotherhanditisdifficulttoseehowthepopulationandwiththempoliticianwillstop‘changing’incomeincreasesinto,amongotherthings,morehealthcare.Laterinthepaperwewilllookatprioritysetting
TheEconomicCouncilnotesthatinessencethereareonlythreepossible(andcombinationsthereof)ways
offinancingthefuturehealthexpendituresif‘additionalgrowth’moreorlessisafactoflife:
• publicexpendituresinotherareasthanhealthhavetogrowatalowerratethaneconomicgrowthintheeconomy,i.e.allowhealthexpenditurestogrowfasterthanGDP,forinstanceatleast0.3%asforthepast15years.
o inessence,however,thisisalreadytakingplace(recallthegrowthratesmentionedearlier).
• taxrevenueshavetogrowfasterthegrowthrateoftheeconomy,i.e.increasethetaxburden
• userpayment/increasedco‐payment.
TheEconomicCouncil(p.226ff)illustratestheconsequencesforthetaxrateifthe‘deficit’istobefinance
entirelythroughtaxes.Anannualincreaseofthelowtaxrateofabout¼%(thetaxrateappliedtothebaseincome)isneededtofinancethe‘additionalgrowth’of0.3%inhealthcareexpenditures.However,thiswillonlyreducethesustainabilityproblemfrom3%ofGDPto1.7%becausethereisaconcomitantneedto
financeelderlycareinthesocialsector.
TheEconomicCouncilalsoproposedanearmarkedhealthtax(‘healthcontribution’)asameanstomakevisiblehealthcarecostsandasapossiblemeansofdiscipliningcostexpansion–andlast,butnotleasttoensurethatcostincreasesarefinancedhere‐andnowandnotbyincreasinggovernmentdebt.Increasesin
thehealthcontributionshouldmatchoverallincreases(demographicandwelfareeffect)inthehealthexpenditures.However,anumberofissuesinrelationtoear‐markedtaxationwerenotdiscussedindetail.
(In)equityissuesEquityissuesareofgreatconcernintheDanishhealthsystem.NotonlydoestheHealthActstatethatDaneshaveequalaccess,butinverygeneraltermstherationalefortheDanishhealthsystemisequityin
theseveralsensesoftheword.Inparticular,‘equalaccessindependentofeconomicmeans’isanimportantpartofthejustificationforthetaxfinancedhealthsystemwhereuseofhospitalsandGPservicesarefreeatthepointofuse.Equityisanimportantgoalinofficialdocumentslikethenationalstrategyfor
preventionandhealthpromotion,wherethecurrentversioncarriesthetitle:Healthythroughoutlife16.
Equityinhealthhastobedistinguishedfromequityinaccesstohealthcare,andequityinthedistributionandutilizationofhealthcareresources,basicallycoveringthreestages:1.access,2.useand3.outcome.Therearetwomainissues:1.Howtomeasureanddocumentthedegreeofinequityand2.howtoreduce
inequity.Thelatterwillbeaddressedinmoredetailinthesectiononsolutions.
Muchofthedebateisframedintermsofequityinhealthandinmanycasesimplyingthatthehealthcaresystemisthemaindeterminantof(in)equityinhealth.However,theclassicdiagramillustratingthatthemechanismsarefarmorecomplicatedstillstands,figure10.Theimportantpointinfigure10isthatshows
![Page 26: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
25
thatintermsofpolicychangesmuchchangeneedtotakeplaceoutsidethehealthcaresystemtraditionallydefined,e.g.workenvironmentorstructuralchanges,e.g.taxationoftobaccooralcohol.
Figure10:Aconceptualmodelofthemaindeterminantsofhealth17
Morbidityvaries–notonlyaccordingtoageandgender,whichisnatural–butalsoaccordingtoschoolingandeducationwhichgivesrisetoequityconcerns.Thelattervariationistermed‘socialgradient.Thisisillustratedinfigure11for(selfreported)diabetesandlongtermillnesswithseverefunctionalrestrictions.
Ageandgenderdifferenceshaveeliminatedsothateducationaldifferenceareclearlyseen.
Figure11:Illustrationofsocialgradientfordiabetesandlongstandingillness
![Page 27: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
26
Thetrendisclearandunambiguous:
• thelesseducationthehigherthepercentagewithdiabetesorlongstandingillness.
o thispictureholdsinmanyotherareas
Thenextquestioniswhetherinequityincreasesovertime,i.e.overtheperiodof18and11yearsrespectivelyinfigure11fordiabetesandlongtermillness?Fordiabetesitisvisuallyclear:therehasbeenanover‐proportionalgrowthamongpersonswithashorteducationcomparedtothosewithalong
education.Thenumberscarryitout:In19872.2%ofpersonswith13+yearsofeducationreporteddiabetescomparedto2.4%forthosewithlessthan10yearsofeducation.In2005thiswasdramaticallydifferent:2.8%comparedto5.8%:
• forseveralillnessesthereseemstobeincreasinginequity.
Brønnum‐Hansen18recentlyreportedonthedevelopmentinhealthoutcomemeasuressuchaslifeexpectancyandselfreportedhealthstatusinDenmark,figure12.Theresultsdocumentthatsocialinequalityinhealthexpectancyhaswidenedsincethemid‐1990s.Thereisastrikingconsistencyin
differencesbetweenpeoplewithalowandahigheducationallevel,whateverindicatorwaschosen.Thehealthexpectancyofpeoplewithamediumeducationallevelwasconsistentlyinbetweenthatofpeoplewithalowandahighlevel.Nosystematicchangeintheproportionofexpectedlifetimeingoodhealthwas
seen.Inparticular,thelifeyearsgainedduringtheperiod1994–2005wereingeneralnotexclusivelyyearsingoodhealth.
Inasocietywithalongstandingconcernforequityadevelopmentliketheonedocumentedinfigures11and12isaconsiderablechallenge.However,themechanismsbehindthisdevelopmentarenoteasily
changed,seefigure10.andtheworkbyJacobNielsenArendt19Arendtdistinguishesbetweendown‐andupstreamelements.Downstreamintermsoffigure10meansfocusingonindividualbehavior,whileup‐streamarestructuralmechanismsinsocietylikeeducationalstructure.
Figure12:Illustrationofinequity20for30yearoldmenandwomen(intermsofremainingexpectedlife
years):lifeexpectancyandselfassessedhealthstatus
![Page 28: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
27
Iftheunderlyingcausesareeducation,doesitthenhelptoworkwithindividualhealthbehavior.Healsoasks:Shouldinequitybereducedatanyprice?Itisaloteasiertopointoutanddocumentanegativedevelopmentinequitythanprovidinganeffectivecure.
Inequityinlifestyle/riskfactorsMuchillnessdependsonlifestyleandhealthbehavior,e.g.smoking,exercise,and/ornutritionalhabits.Thereisastrongandpersistentsocialgradientinlifestyle.Hence,thereundoubtedlyisarelationship
betweenthesocialgradientinlifestyleand(thesocialgradient)inillnessesrelatedtoparticularlifestyles/healthbehavior–andtheninturnfeedingintoandbecomingpartoftheexplanationforinequityinhealthoutcome.However,theexactrelationshipisfarmorecomplicatedthatindicatedhere,butthere
mustbearelationship.
Figure13showsclearlythatthosewiththelowesteducationandschoolingalsoarethosewithhealthhabitsthatarenotconducivetogoodhealth(‘unhealthylifestyle’).
Figure13:Socialgradientsintwolifestyle/healthhabitareas20
Thesamepatternisseeninfigure14,whereitisextendedtoincludeworkinglife.Heavyphysicalworkissomethingthatisfarmoreprevalentamongpersonswiththefewestyearsofeducationandschooling.
Thepatternseeninthetwopreviousfiguresisfoundinmanyotherareasandiswelldocumented21.
![Page 29: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
28
Figure14::Thesocialgradientinexerciseandworklife
Itisverydifficulttolookintothefutureasregardsdevelopmentinhealthhabitsandsomeoftheconsequencesinthewakeof(un)healthybehavior/habits.AbraveattempthasbeenmadebyJuelandDavidsenatTheNationalInstituteofPublicHealth22.Pastdevelopment–forinstancefrom1987to2005is
analyzed,e.g.theleftpartoffigure15,andthenputintoapopulationprognosisasusedabove,resultinginaprognosis,therightpartoffigure15.Suchprognosesareinherentlydifficulttomake,butwithashorttimehorizontheystillmakeindicatealikelydevelopment.Suchdevelopments–andtheconsequencesfor
themorbiditypanorama,e.g.diabetes–werenotincludedintheprognosisabovefordevelopmentinhealthexpenditures.
Figure15:Developmentinoverweightandaprognosisfor2020
![Page 30: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
29
Inequityinaccess“Equalaccess”meaningaccessaccordingtomedicalneedandnot,forinstanceincome,isakeyobjectiveof
Danishhealthcare.Thisissueisillustratedinfigure15AforvisitstoGPanddentistwithinthepastthreemonth.TheimportantdifferencebetweenthetwoprovidersisthataccesstoGPisfree,whilethereisconsiderableco‐paymentfordentalvisits–hencewithco‐paymentasapossiblebarriertoaccess–aclear
pictureemerges.
ForGPvisitsaslightly‘reverse’socialgradientisseenwithpercentwisemorepersonswithshorteducationseeingaGPinthestatedtimeperiodthanpersonswithalongeducation.Inviewofthesocialgradientinmorbidityitisnotsurprisingalbeitthereversepicturemighthavebeenstronger.Ontheotherhand,for
visitstothedentiststhewellknownsocialgradientisseen.Therealunderlyingreasonishardlyeducationpersebutratheranunderlyingdifferenceinincomeaccordingtoeducation.
Prescriptionmedicineisalsocharacterizedbyquiteabitofco‐payment.Whenlookingat‘regularuseofmedicine’usingsamethetechniqueasinfigure15A,thereisaclear‘reverse’socialgradient:Forthe
groupwith+13yearsofeducation34%saidtheywereregularusercomparedto48%forthegroupwithlessthan10yearsofeducation.Itisnotnecessarilyacontradictioncomparedtouseofdentist,butshouldcautionabouttooquickconclusionsaboutco‐payment.Oneobservationisrelevant,however:Mostofthe
regularmedicineusersundoubtedlyuseprescriptionmedicine–andhencehavereceivedadvicefromaphysician.Thesametypeofadviceisnotavailablefortheneedfordentaltreatment.
Figure15A:AccesstoGPanddentist.
HighexpectationsExpectationsfromthepopulationingeneralandpatientsinparticularchallengethepublichealthcare
systeminmanyways23.Patientsexpecttoreceivehighqualitytreatment,responsivenesstopersonalneeds,tobeinformedandtobeinvolvedindecisionmaking–andontopthattheyexpectfreeservicesastheimplicit‘payment’fortheirtaxes.Inadditionpatientsactmoreandmorelikeconsumers24,25and
considerhealthcareonparwith(some)consumergoods.Expectationsareformedinmanyways:
![Page 31: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
30
Knowledgeaboutavailabilityoftreatment,experiencewithservicelevelsandattitudeofprovidersinotherwalksoflife.
Thepublichealthcaresystem,however,sofaralsoseemstohavebeensuccessful,atleastintermsofhighpatientsatisfaction26.Despitethesegoodresults,thereisagrowingpublicdebateaboutthe
responsivenessofthepublichealthcaresystemtopatients’individualneedsforbeinginvolved,beinginformedandhavingindividualizedtheircontactwiththehealthcaresystem.Recentresultsofpatientsatisfactioningeneralpracticeseemtoindicatethatasignificantshareofespeciallyyoungpeoplearenot
satisfiedwiththeirtreatmentandalsoexperiencethatdoctorsactpaternalisticallyandarenotresponsivetopatients’needforinformationandinvolvement27.Thismaysignalthecomingofagenerationwithotherexpectationsanddemands.
Thepopulationingeneralexpectstohaveeasyaccesstoahighlyspecializedandhighqualityhealthcare
systemproviding‘bestpractice’treatment.Therisingexpectationstothehealthcaresystem,togetherwiththefiscalconstraintsdiscussedabovewillbeamajorchallenge.Potentially,thehighexpectationstomeetbestqualityofcareandeasyaccessmaychallengethefinancialsustainabilityandthelegitimacyofthe
publichealthcaresysteminthepopulation,inparticulariftheoutcomeofthisisanincreasednumberofvoluntaryhealthinsurancegivingaccesstoprivatehealthcarefacilities,e.g.privatehospitals.Privatefinancingandprivatehospitalsneednotbeanegativephenomenon,buttoavoidfragmentationthenature
andrulesforcooperationbetweenpublicandprivatehospitalsneedtobespecified.
TheregionshavebeenrathersuccessfulinclosingdownanumberofsmallerhospitalsinDenmarkdespitelocalprotests.However,itisquestionablewhetherthepopulation’sexpectationscanbemetwithadecreasingnumberofhospitalsandespeciallyareducednumberofacutefacilitiesinthefuture.
Furthermore,thecostofnewtreatmentswillnotonlychallengethefiscalsustainabilitybutalsochallengethepopulation’strusttothepublichealthcaresystemwhennotallnewtreatmentmaybeaffordablewithinthepublichealthcarebudget.Thelegitimacyofthepresentpublichealthcaresystemwithuniversal
coverageandeasyaccessmaybequestionedwithaneverpresent(andincreasing)needforprioritizationandcompetingprivateoptions.
Adifferencebetweenthepoliticalwillingnesstopayandtheprivatewillingnesstopaywiththelatterbeingbiggerthantheformerbutwithno‘outlet’throughthepublicsectorbudgetduetofiscalconstraintswill
mostlikelyleadtoanincreaseinprivatehealthinsurance.
Inthehealthinsuranceliteratureitiscommontodistinguishbetweencomplementary,supplementaryorduplicatehealthinsuranceinrelationtothetax‐financedsystem28,29:1.Complementaryvoluntaryprivatehealthinsurancecoversco‐paymentsfortreatmentsthatareonlypartlycoveredbythetax‐financedhealth
caresystem.2.Supplementaryvoluntaryprivatehealthinsurancecoverstreatmentsthatareexcludedfromthetax‐financedhealthcaresystem.3.Duplicatevoluntaryprivatehealthinsurancecoversdiagnosticsandelectivesurgeryatprivatehospitalsandforinstancephysiotherapyorofficevisitsto
medicalspecialists–servicesthatarealsoprovidedbythetax‐financedpublichealthcaresystem.
Theincreaseinprivatehealthinsurancewillmostlikelyoccurintheareaofduplicatevoluntaryinsuranceforelectivetreatment.Inviewoftheexpectedsizeofinsurancepremiumsitisratherdifficulttoimagine
thataninsurancemarketforacuteprivatehealthcarewillemerge.
![Page 32: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
31
Globalization/Europeanizationofhealthcaremarkets&healthtourismAnimportantexternalfactorwithgrowinginfluenceontheDanishhealthsystemistheongoingand
gradualintegrationwithintheEUandglobalmarketsforhealthservices,workforceandcapital.TheimplementationoftheEU“InternalMarket”impliesthathealthpersonnel,healthservicesandcapitalforhealthserviceinvestmentscanmovefreelyacrossnationalborderswithintheUnion.Theactual
developmentofEU‐widemarketsisagradualprocesswhereparticularlytheEUcourtsystemandtheCommissionispushingtheboundariesfortheinternalmarketintothefieldofhealthcare,whilemanymemberstates,andthustheCouncilofMinisterswanttomaintaintheorganizationofhealthcareasa
nationalprerogativeaccordingtotheTreaty(theprincipleofsubsidiarity).TheongoingtensionbetweenthetwopositionscreatesaratherundeterminedpathforthefuturewhereEUcourtdecisionsinrealitybecomethedriversforamoreintegratedmarket30,31.
Whyisfreemovementofpatientsachallenge?First,becausenationstatesmaylosetheirabilityto
determinenationalservicelevelsandthuswillhavelessroomtoestablishnationalpriorities–andhencealsolesscontrolovernationalcoststhanpreviously.Second,becauseoftheeconomicchallengeofhavingtopayfortreatmentabroad,whileatthesametimebeingobligatedtoprovideserviceandservice
infrastructurenationally.Therearealsounresolvedissuesofqualitycontrolacrossnationalbordersandlegalobligationsincaseofmalpracticeoraccidents.Theactualnumberofpatientstravelingabroadisstillverylimited,butcanbeexpectedtoincreaseinthefuture.–TheDanishregionshadagreementswith6
privatetreatmentfacilitiesabroadin2009.
Whyisfreemovementofcapitalandservicesachallenge?ThereisariskthatmajorinternationalcapitalfundsorhospitalchainsmoveintotheDanishmarketashasalreadybeenwitnessedbyforinstancetheacquisitionof‘DanishPrivateHospitals’bythecapitalfundAleriswhichisasubsidiaryofthehugefund
EQT.Thiscanbeseenasanadvantage,asitcreatesacapacitybuffer.Yet,italsocreatesissuesofplanningandcoordinationacrossthepublicandprivatesectors,aswellascompetitionforpersonnel,whichforinstancemaydriveupwages.
TheissueofinternationalizationofhealthcareextendsbeyondtheEUarea.Thereisagrowing
internationalmarketfortreatmentsforinstanceinplasticsurgeryandforseriousillnessessuchascancer–givingrisetoso‐called‘healthtourism’(medicaltourism).Althoughthiscanbebeneficialtotheindividualtherearealsosignificantrisksanduncertaintiesrelatedtothequalityoftreatmentabroad,andthe
obligationincaseofmalpracticeoraccidents.However,fromaDanishperspectiveveryfewofthehealthtouristsareDanes.Ontheotherhand:Theincreasedtransparencyabouttreatmentsavailableabroad–andmaybenoteasilyaccessibleinDenmark–mayfuelmorehealthtourismthanseentoday.
Integrationofprivateprovidersandfinancingwithauniversalandcomprehensivepublichealthcaresystemandthecreationofalevelplayingfieldforcompetition.TheDanishhealthsystemwasdesignedandhasdevelopedasapublicintegratedstructurewhereplanning,expenditurecontrolanddeliverywaslargelyintegratedinamulti‐levelpublicgovernancestructurewiththeregionallevelasakeyplayer.PrimarycareproviderslikeGPs,practicingspecialists,physiotherapists
![Page 33: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
32
etc.havehistoricallybeenself‐employedbutstronglyintegratedintothepublicsystem,andalmostexclusivelyfinancedbypublicfunds.
Starting1989,butacceleratingaftertheturnofthemillenniumanincreasingnumberofsmallprivatehospitalsprovidingmainlyelectivesurgeryhaveenteredthemarket.Thegrowthwasfueledbythetax
exemptstatusforemployerpaidhealthinsurancegivingaccesstotreatmentintheprivatesector,andthegovernment’swaitingtimeguarantee.Initially(fromJuly2002toOctober2007)itwasatwomonthguaranteeandafterOctober2007itwasreducedtoonemonth.Theguaranteemeansthatafterwaiting
two/onemonthfortreatmentatpublichospitals,patientsacquiretherighttotreatmentintheprivatesectorfinancedoutofthepublichealthbudget.
Theprivatehospitalsectorissmallbutattractsconsiderableattentioninthepublicdebate.Unfortunatelythereisatendencytoconfuseprivatehospitalswithbedsforovernightpatientsandsinglepractitioners
withincertainspecialties,e.g.eye,ear,nose,throat.Thereareabout20private(forprofit)hospitals.Privatehospitalsinparticularprovideelectiveorthopedicsurgery(hip‐knee‐replacementetc.).Privatehospitalsonaveragehave9‐10beds(asofJuly1,2010)andmosthave5‐10beds.Thetotalbedcapacityin
theprivatehospitalsectoris50032.Thisshouldbecomparedtoabout16,000somaticbedsinpublichospitalsofwhich6,000bedsarebedswithinthesurgicalspecialties’33.
Themanpowersituationforprivatehospitalsisasfollows32
• 500FTEnurses,equaltoabout850persons,ofwhichabout20%holdapositionatapublichospital.Thereareabout33,000FTEnursesatpublichospitals.
• About200full‐timeemployedphysiciansandanumberofparttimeemployedphysicianssothat
thetotalnumberofphysiciansisaround800ofwhich70%alsoholdajobatapublichospital.Thisnumberofphysiciansshouldbecomparedtoatotalof13,000physiciansatpublichospitals.
Theturnoverofprivatehospitalsin2009was2.2billionDkr.ofwhichabout1.2billionDkr.waspaymentfor‘guarantee’patientspaidforbythepublicsector.Therestcamefromhealthinsuranceandpatients
whopaythemselves.
Themarketforhealthinsurancein2009wasasfollows
• 900,000holdersofemployerpaidhealthinsurance,andabout1.1millioncovered(spousesoftenarecovered).Thismarkethasbasicallyemergedsincemid2002.
• 1.8millionmembersof‘denmark’ofwhichabout25%carrysurgerybenefits
Theintroductionofprivatefinancing/healthinsuranceandprivateproviders,inparticularprivatehospitals,ascompetitorstopublichospitalsraisesanumberofissues.First,privatefinancingthroughvoluntary
healthinsuranceforelectivetreatmentpaidbytheemployerandtaxexemptfortheemployeechallengesthebasicprincipleofsocialequity,asittendstofavorpeopleincertainprivateindustries,andisalmosttotallyabsentinthepublicsector.Second,privateproviderscreateissuesofcoordinationastheyarenot
partoftheordinaryhierarchicalchainofcommand,andoftennotwellintegratedintermsofinformationsharingsystems.Third,theambitionofcreatingcompetitionbetweenpublicandprivateprovidersinvolves
![Page 34: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
33
anumberofissuesinregardstosettingalevelplayingfield.Publicprovidersareobligedtoprovideacutecareandthewholespectrumoftreatment,beitacuteorelective.Publichospitalscannotdecidetoclosedownunprofitableservices.Theprivatesectorontheotherhandcanselecttheiractivityareasanddonot
haveextendedobligationstomaintainacutecareorlong‐termcareservices.Publichospitalshaveobligationsintermsofresearchandeducation,whichprivateactorsdonot.Thesegeneralfactorscontributetoahighercoststructureinthepublicsector,andthusunevencompetitionterms.Thecurrent
configurationofthepaymentsystemtohospitalswithacombinationofactivitybasedfundingandaglobalbudgetimpliesthatpublichospitalsareonlyrewardedforextraactivityuptoacertainpoint.Beyondthisthresholdlevel,theyhavenoincentivetoincreaseactivity.Privatehospitalsontheotherhanddonothave
similarconstraints.Extraactivitymeansextraincomeforthisgroupofproviders.
OpportunitiesInteractionwithprivatesector(businessandNGO)fordevelopmentofneworganizationalforms,medicalpracticesandtechnologies.
Intheprevioussectionwehavedescribedanumberofchallengesinregardstotheinteractionbetweenthepublicandtheprivatesectorinhealthcare.However,itisevidentthatinteractionwiththeprivatesector
canalsobeseenasanopportunityinseveralways.First,theprivateproviderscanrepresentaconvenientbuffertosupplementthepublicsectorinsituationsofextrapressures.Havingaprivatesectoralleviatesthepublicfrominvestmentcosts,andreducestheriskofoverinvestinginpublicresourcesthatmay
becomeredundant.Second,theexistenceofaprivatesectorandthecreationofanexitoptionforcitizenscanprovidepersonalutilityaswellaspressureonthepublicsectortoimproveserviceandquality.Themechanismforservice‐qualityimprovementiscomplexanddependsonthefinancingsystem.Yetthereis
reasontobelievethatthemereexistenceofanalternativeoptionandtheinherentcontestabilityofpublicserviceswhenprovidinganexitoptioncansharpentheattentiontoservice‐qualitydimensions34.Third,theprivatesectormayprovideopportunitiesforlearningandorganizationaldevelopment.Privateactorswork
underdifferentconditionsthanpublicones,andmaythushavedifferentincentivestodevelopneworganizationalsolutions.Thepublicsectormaytakeadvantageofthisbyselectivelycopyingprivatesectorpractices.Finally,theremaybebenefitsinestablishingcooperationwithprivatefirmsfordevelopingand
testingnewpharmaceuticalsandmedicaldevices.Theprivatesectorhasexpertiseandlivesettingsfordevelopmentofproducts,whiletheprivatesectorhasknowledgeofmarketconditionsandcapitaltofunddevelopment.Developmentandresearchcanbenefitboth.
Aspecifictypeofpublic‐privateinteractioninvolvesvoluntaryorganizationsorNGOs.Thereareseveral
examplesofthisalready.Patientorganizationsprovideexpertiseandknowledgeoftheconditionsforspecificpatientgroups.Largerpatientorganizationsalsofundresearchandprovidefacilitiesfortheirmemberstosupplementthepublicservicesupply.Notforprofitorganizationsdelivercareservicesto
elderlyandlongtermcarepatients.Amorerecentphenomenonattheindividuallevelistheuseofprivatevolunteersashelpersinhospitalsettings.Sofar,theirrolehasmostlybeentosupportandhelpoutwithpracticalissues,butitisnotunlikelytheirrolecanbeextendedinthefutureinboththehospitalsectorand
inlongtermcare.
![Page 35: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
34
PersonalizedmedicineAnumberofadvancesine.g.thefieldofhumangeneticsandmolecularmedicinehavemadeitpossibletodevelopnewtreatmentandpreventionstrategies.Thequestisopenedtowardsindividualized(personalizedortargeted)medicinewithhugeinterestsinbiomarkers,andpharmaco‐genetics.
Personalizedmedicineisaconceptwherepatientcarebecomeindividualizedbasedondistinctivecharacteristicswithhealthcareservicestailoredtoindividualvariationinriskandtreatmentresponse.Individualizedmedicineinvolvesthatpredictedtreatmentresponsestotreatmentwillbebasedonthe
individual’sgeneticmakeup.Individualswillbeclassifiedbeyondtheirbasicdiagnosisaccordingtodiseasesusceptibilityorexpectedresponsivenesstotreatmentenablingtargetedinterventionspotentiallyprovidingbetterefficiencyofexistingtreatmentsandfewerorlesssevereside‐effects.Medicinewillbe
givenmoreeffectivelyandnewtreatmentstrategiesingeneralcanbeinvestigatedreducingcostormakingtreatmentprogramsmorecost‐effective.However,personalizedmedicinerequiresmorespecializedandmoreintensivediagnosticproceduresandmayinducecostsforgeneticcounselingandnewtypesof
medicalcare35.Also,thereremainsaconsiderableneedforresearchbeforepromisingtechnologieshaveprovidedevidencetobeimplementedincommonpractice36.Advancesinstratifiedtherapeuticanddiagnostictestsinvolvedevelopmentofnewtherapeuticapproacheswithuseofinnovativecompounds
usuallyincreasingcosts(andimprovingquality)oftreatment.Itisunsurehowcostlyandcost‐effectivethedevelopmentpersonalizedmedicineisbutitwillsurelybeoneofthechallengesinthefuturehealthcaresystemintermsofcost,cost‐effectiveness,needforprioritizationanddemandforspecializedresources.
Anotherchallengewillbethepotentialfuturedevelopmentswithincelltherapy,treatmentswithstemcellsandnewdrugsfacilitatingnewtreatmentsputtingevenmorepressureonthefundingofthepublichealthcaresystem.
Diagnosticsisthekeytopersonalizedmedicine37,38,atailoredapproachtotreatmentbasedonthe
molecularanalysisofgenes,proteins,andmetabolites.Yetalthoughthisapproachhasgeneratedmuchexcitement,fewpersonalized‐medicinetestshaveachievedhighlevelsofclinicaladoption.Wearealreadyseeingthatnewdepartmentsofmolecularmedicinearebeingaddedtotheeverincreasingnumberof
specialties.Forinstance,theuniversityhospitalinSkejbyinMarch2009openedamolecularmedicaldepartment39providing,amongotherthingsdiagnosticmoleculartests.Similarly,itispossibletoobtainauniversitydegreeinmolecularmedicine,e.g.attheUniversityofAarhus40.Massspectrometryisan
analyticaltechniquethatisusedfordeterminingtheelementalcompositionofforinstancemoleculesandforelucidatingthechemicalstructuresofmolecules.Hence,accesstosuchtechniquesisanimportantprerequisite.Inotherwords:thefutureisalreadyhereandnewtreatmentpossibilitiesarereadytotake
off.
Inarecentarticle37itwasnotedthattherearethreemainobstaclestotheadvancementofpersonalizedmedicine:scientificchallenges(apoorunderstandingofmolecularmechanismsoralackofmolecular
markersassociatedwithsomediseases,forexample),economicchallenges(poorlyalignedincentives),andoperationalissues.Althoughscientificdifficultiesremain,theeconomicchallengesandoperationalquestionsnowseemtobethebiggesthurdle.
Davisetal37notesthatinvestorsandanalystshavesuggestedthatpersonalizedmedicinecandramatically
reducehealthcarecosts.Yetmostpayershavebeenslowtoinvestinpersonalizedmedicine.Leadersinpayerorganizationssaythatseveralfactorscouldexplainthisreluctance.First,itishardtoidentifywhich
![Page 36: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
35
teststrulysavecosts.Second,thebeliefthatitisdifficulttotrackmuchearlier‐stageandexperimentaltestingleadstofearsthatalthoughindividualtestsmaynotbeveryexpensive,theoveralleventualcostscouldbeunjustifiablyhigh.Athirdconcernisthedifficultyofenforcingstandardprotocolstoensurethat
physiciansfollowthroughwithappropriatepatientcarebasedontestresults.Fourth,testinformationcouldbemisused—particularlyintheearlystagesofinvestigationanddevelopment—whichcouldharmpatients.Finally,thereisnolongitudinalaccounting,whichwouldenablepayerstocapturelong‐termcost
savingsfromnear‐termtesting.
NewtechnologiesThereducednumberofhospitalbedexperienceinallwesterncountrieshasbeenenabledbybetterplanningoftreatmentsandlatelybynewtreatmenttechnologiesfacilitatinglessinvasivetreatmentwherepatientscanbedischargesearlierortreatedinoutpatientsettings.Thelasttwodecadeshavealsooffered
newdevelopmentsoftelemedicineandnewITinfrastructuresassistingmoreefficienttreatmentpatterns.Withanagingpopulationwithfewerpeopleintheworkingforcemoreagreatershareofthepopulationwithneedoftreatmentthesenewtechnologies,whereonlyafewoftheexistingtechnologiesare
implementedatthemoment,maybeoneofthefuturecontributionstosustaininganefficientandsustainablepublichealthcaresector.Theseassistingtechnologiesmayaddressdifferenttypeofissues.1)Onetypeoftechnologyisrelateddirectlytotreatmentofpatientssuchastelemedicinewithdirector
indirectcommunicationbetweenpatientandhealthcareprofessionalswhichmayreducecostorincreasequalityofcareefficientlyaddressingnotonlythelongerdistancestohospitalsbutalsothepopulations’risingexpectationsforresponsiveness.Anothertypeoftechnologyisforinstancerobotassisted
surgery(Barbash,2010;Lotan,2004;Patel,2009).2)Anothertypeoftechnologyfacilitateefficientuseofexistingresourcesbymoreefficientcommunicationormoreefficientuseofcapacityacrossdifferentgeographicalsits.3)FinallynewITtechnologiesmayfacilitatemoreefficientuseofinformationforpresent
treatmentbutalsofortreatmentplanningandcommunication.Sincethisareawillbedescribedasoneofoursolutionswewillnotcommentthisfurtherhereexceptfortheobservation,thatthereappearstobesignificantpotentialasonlyalimitednumberofexistingtechnologieshavebeenimplementedsofar.
Newtechnologiescanbeofthreetypesfromaneconomicperspective:a.Dotheysubstituteexisting
treatments,i.e.better(andlesscostly?),b)aretheycomplementarytoexistingtreatmentenhancingtheclinicaland/oreconomicvalue,andc)newinthesensethattheyhavenotbeenavailableearlier.Thereisnodoubtthatthefuturewillholdexamplesofallthree,butmostlikelywithfocusonc)withlikelycost‐
expansionofhealthcareexpenditures.However,inviewoftheideaofthepresentSWOT‐analysis,itwouldbedesirablethatopportunitiescanalsobeseenaspartofthesolutiontothechallengeslisted.Thismeansthatfromthisperspectivetheinterestingnewtechnologiesshouldbesubstitutes,pointainthelist.
ExpectationsandcompetenciesofthepopulationparticipationandselfcareInlinewiththetechnologicaldevelopment,thepopulations’competencies,willingnessandexpectationstobeinvolvedintreatmenthaveincreased.Foranincreasingnumberofchronicpatientstreatmentsaretoahighdegreedependentonpatients’self‐careandactiveparticipationinnotonlytreatmentbutinactively
changinglifestyle.Thewillingnessandexpectationtoparticipateactivelyhaveresultedinmanynewtreatmentandpreventivestrategiesinvolvingindividualcoaching,grouptraining,selfcaretechnologiesfor
![Page 37: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
36
monitoringetc.whichempowerpatientswithcompetenciesandself‐caretoadegreewheretheydonotconsiderthemselvesas‘patients’41.
Havingemphasizedthemanygooddevelopmentsintheseareasthereisstillneedforprovidingevidenceformanyofthesetreatmentstrategiesaswellasaneedfordevelopmentofstrategieswhichwork
efficientlyforlowersocialgroupswhichseemnottobeefficientlytargetedwiththepresentinitiatives.
Strengths
PatientrightsAnumberofinitiativeshavebeenintroducedtostrengthenpatientrightsinthehealthsystem42.The
NationalBoardofHealthisinchargeofsecuringthepatients’dignity,integrityandrightofself‐determination43.In1992,alawwaspassedonpatientrights,whichobligesdoctorstoinformpatientsoftheircondition,treatmentoptions,andtheriskofcomplications.Italsoprohibitsdoctorsfrominitiating,or
proceedingwith,anygiventreatmentthatisagainstthewillofthepatient(unlessmandatedbylaw).Inaddition,thepatienthastherightnottoreceiveinformation.Thislawwasextendedin1998,regulatingthebasicandgeneralprinciplesoftheindividualpatient’srightofself‐determinationandpublicsecurity
relatedtothehealthsystemandregardingmedicalexamination,treatmentandcare.Issuescoveredarethepatient’srighttocontinuousinformation,whichisadaptedaccordingtoageandthedisease(s),giventhroughoutexaminationsandtreatmentandcommunicatedwithrespecttothepatient.Furthermore,the
rulesalsodeterminedoctors’rightstoshareinformationwiththirdparties,togivepatientsrightofaccesstodocuments,toholdcaserecordsandtohavetotalprofessionalconfidentiality44.
Thegeneralaimsofthepatientrightsregulationaretohelpensurethatthepatient’sdignity,integrityandself‐determinationarerespected;andtosupportthetrustrelationshipsbetweenthepatient,thehealth
systemandthevariouspersonnelinvolved.Theactalsocontainsrulesoninformationaboutconsentandlifetestimonials,andinformationregardingpatientcasesandprofessionalconfidentiality,alongwithaccesstohealthinformation45.
Thechoiceandwaitingtimeguaranteesarepatientrightsofadifferentkind.
Choiceandwaitingtimeguarantees
ChoiceofprimarycareSince1973residentsovertheageof16havebeenabletochoosebetweentwocoverageoptionsknownasGroup1andGroup2.ThedefaultisGroup1andapproximately99%oftheDanishpopulationwereinthisgroupin200446.Group1membershavefreeaccesstogeneralpreventive,diagnosticandcurativeservices.
Patientsayconsultemergencywards,dentists,chiropractors,ear,noseandthroatspecialistsorophthalmologistswithoutpriorreferral,buttheirGPmustreferthemforaccesstoallothermedicalspecialties,physiotherapyandhospitaltreatments.ConsultationwithaGPorspecialistisfreeofcharge,
whiledentalcare,podiatry,psychologyconsultations,chiropracticsandphysiotherapyaresubsidized.Patientsseekingcarefromspecialistsotherthanear,noseandthroatspecialistsorophthalmologists,andwithoutaGPreferral,areliabletopaythefullfee.AnindividualmaychangeGPsforanominalfeeatany
time.
![Page 38: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
37
InGroup2,individualsarefreetoconsultanyGPandanyspecialistwithoutreferral.TheregionwillsubsidizetheexpensesuptothecostofthecorrespondingtreatmentforapatientinGroup1.Thesamerulesapplytotreatmentbypodiatrists,psychologists,dentists,chiropractorsandphysiotherapists.Hospital
treatmentsarefree.Onlyaminorityofthepopulation(1%)choosesthisgroup,probablyduetothelevelofgeneralsatisfactionwiththereferralsystem.
ChoiceofhospitalsAlegislativereformin1993gavepatientsthefreedomtochoosetobetreatedatanyhospitalinthecountryaslongastreatmenttakesplaceatthesamelevelofspecialization.Thisisinaccordancewiththefundamentalprinciplethathealthservicesshouldbeprovidedatthemostappropriatelevelof
specialization(i.e.lessspecializedcasesshouldnotbereferredtomorehighlyspecializedunits).Thislegislativereformwasakeysteptowardsallowingpatientsmoreinfluenceovertheircareandtreatment.However,accordingtoanationalstudy,whichassessedtheimpactofthereform,patientsprefertreatment
closetotheirplaceofresidence,whichcontradictstheoriginalintentionofthereform47.
In2002,anewpieceoflegislationregardingwaitingtimeguaranteeswasimplemented.Patientswhoarenotofferedtreatmentatpublichospitalswithintwomonthsofreferralarefreetochoosetreatmentatprivatehospitalsorclinicsanywhereinthecountryandathospitalsabroad.In2007,thisguaranteewas
changedtoonemonthasof1October.Thenon‐publictreatmentexpensesarepaidbythepatient’sregion.Asapreconditionfortheuseoftheextendedfreechoice,thechosennon‐publichospitalorclinichastohaveanagreementwiththeregion46.
Average”experienced”waitingtimesforplannedhospitaloperationshavefallenfrom90to57daysinthe
period2001‐2005andhasbeenrelativelystableatthislevelsincethen,althoughwithaslightincreasein2008and2009.Themeasureof”experienced”waitingtimeisafterthediagnosisisdeterminedandwithoutpatientinducedwaitingtime2.
Waitingtimesforlifethreateningdiseasessuchascancerareconsiderablylowerastheyareinessence
treatedasacuteconditions,andalsosubjecttospecific“carepackages”definingthemaximumwaitingtimeforallpartsofthetreatment.
87%ofthepatientsadmittedtohospitalforplannedproceduresin2006wereawareoftheirrighttochoosehospital.–46%indicatedinasurveyin2006thattheyhadactivelychosenthehospitalonwhich
theyweretreated(thisincludeschoiceoflocalhospitals)2.
Around60.000patientsweretreatedaccordingtothewaitingtimeguaranteein2009.Thetotalnumberofplannedoperationsin2009was660.0002.
Highpatientsatisfactionandtrust Patientsatisfactionisgenerallyhighandhasremainedonahighlevel,andisalsohighcomparedtootherpublicsectors.Around90%aresatisfiedwiththeirinpatientstayoroutpatientvisit26.Around20%ofthe
populationhascontactwithhospitalthroughoutayearandthehighlevelofsatisfactionforpublichospitalthereforeprovidesgreatlegitimacytothepublichospitalsinthepublicdebate.However,thepublicdebate
alsocontainstheindividualcasewithcriticalanderroneoushandlingoftreatmentorcommunication.InadditionthenumberofpatientcomplaintshandledbythenationalPatients’BoardofComplaints’has
![Page 39: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
38
increasedfrome.g.3,312newcasesin2005to4,235newcasesin200948.Thisincreasingnumberofcomplaintscannotunambiguouslyinterpretedwhiletheincreasingratemayillustratenotonlychangesinexpectationstotreatment,treatmentoutcomesandcommunication;changesingeneraltrusttothehealth
caresystem;changesinpopulation’sattitudestoauthoritiesandchangesinactualdeliveredquality.Thenumberofpatientcomplaintsis,however,stillconsideredtobeonalowlevelcomparedtotheoverallnumberofcontacts.
Easyaccessinprimarycare,incl.gatekeeperrole
OneofthemajorstrengthsemphasizedinaSWOTanalysisbyaninternationalteamin1999wastheeasy
accesstogeneralpractice49‐51.Theefficientmixoffee‐for‐serviceandcapitationreimbursement,thewell‐organizedpatient‐listsystemandthegatekeepingbyGPswereemphasizedtoprovidenotonlyeasyandquickaccesstoprimarycareservicesbutalsotocontributetokeepingtreatmentonthelowesteffective
costlevel.ThecurrentGPsystemhasexperiencesveryfewandonlyevolutionarychangesinthelastfourdecadesandhasonlyrecentlybeenchallengeswithminorchangesduetolackofGPsinsomeareasofDenmark.Thenumberofconsultationshasincreasedwitharound2%yearly(adjustedforpopulationsize
anddemographics)overalongperiodandthishasincreasedtheexpenditureforGPs.TheexpenditureforGPsasrelativeashareoftotalhealthcareexpenditurehasremainedrelativestable.
Thelatest2011contractwithGPsopensupforregionstosetuptheirownclinicswithpubliclyemployedGPstocopewiththeshortageofGPsinoutlyingareas.SofarGPsexclusivelyhaveworkedasprivate
entrepreneurswithapubliccontract.Thismaysignalachangeintheinstitutionalorganizationofthissectorbutthechangeswillonlyhavemarginalinfluenceintheshort‐runonthegeneralorganizationofGPswhiletheprivateentrepreneurialsystemstillisconsideredtobeaverycostefficientsystemcomparedto
otherinstitutionalorganizationofmodeofprovision.Also,thesamecontractopenedupfortheselfemployedGPstoestablishbranchfacilities,typicallyinoutlyingareas,andtostaffthemwith‘employee‐GPs’,i.e.changingtherulethatGPsshouldbeself‐employed.Thischangemaycounteractthepossiblyfor
publicrunGPsurgeries.
(Reasonable)expenditurecontrol,includingefficiencyandreimbursementsystemsThereisastrongandunrelentingpressureonthecostofhealthcaresystemsallovertheworld.Risingincomelevelsandeverimprovingornewmethodsoftreatmentarethemainexplanations,butnotuptillnowdemography.ByinternationalstandardsthegrowthrateforhealthexpendituresinDenmark,
however,islow.Figure6and7carrythisoutclearly.Thisraisesseveralquestions:Hastheannualincreasesbeentoolow–onaverage2.8%forthepast10years?Whatarethelikelyexplanationsofthe
tightexpenditurecontrol?
Astothefirstquestionitisimpossibletoansweryesorno.Theanswerdependsnotonlyontheperspective,i.e.pressuregroups,politicians,theaverageuseretc.,butalsoonassessmentofwhethernewandimprovedtreatmentshavebeenmadeavailablenottoolongafterinternationalavailability.Overall
thereisnoreasontobelievethatDenmarkhasbeenfarbehindintheintroductionofnewtreatments,althoughexceptionscanbefound.Seealso‘weaknesses’wherethequestionoftootightbudgetsisalsodiscussed.
![Page 40: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
39
Takentogetherthreemainexplanationsofthelowgrowthratecanbegiven:
• budgetcapsnegotiatedannuallybetweenthegovernmentandtheregionalauthorities
• productivityincreases
• reasonablywellfunctioningreimbursementsystems.
Intaxfinancedsystemsthedevelopmentofhealthexpendituretoaconsiderableextentistiedtothemacroeconomicdevelopment.Thisisreflectedinannualbudgetnegotiationsbetweengovernmentandtheregionsabouttheeconomicframes/budgetcapsfortheupcoming.Basicallygovernmentwillenterthe
negotiationswithaneyetooveralleconomyandthelevelandgrowthrateofpublicexpendituresingeneral.Fromtheperspectiveofeconomiststhisisastrengtheventhoughthegrowthratehasexceededthatoftheeconomyformanyyears.Inadditionitistoaconsiderableextentabindingbudgetconstraintin
thesensethatbudgetoverrunstypicallyhavetobepickedupthefollowingyear.
Intheannualbudgetnegotiationsannualproductivityincreasesarealsoestablished:Usuallytwopercentperyear,meaningthatinthiswaymoreroomiscreatedforanincreasedactivitylevelinadditiontotherealincreaseofresourcesavailable.
Thecappedsectoralbudget,a‘hard’budgetconstraint,andproductivityrequirementhasledtoa
reasonablegoodproductivityrecordforthehospitals,figure16.
Figure16:Cumulativeproductivitygrowth2003‐209forhospitals(strikein2008)52
Introductionof‘packages’forcancerandcertaincardiacconditionsandfasttrackissueThefasttrackapproachforhospitalcareforcancerpatientsandcertaingroupsofpatientswithcardiovasculardiseaseshasimprovedpatientsatisfactionandqualityoftreatment,becausethefasttrackapproachisbasedonminimizingdelaybetweenservicesandcareistightlycoordinated53.
Inbothcasesthefasttrackapproachwasintroducedbecauseitwasfairlycommonknowledgethatfor
bothgroupsofpatientwaitingtimemightbeharmfultohealth(diseaseprogress).Itisnoteworthythatthechangewasbroughtaboutbyalawmakingitapatientright,althoughoneprovincialhospital(VejleSygehus)hadpioneeredtheapproach,buttakeupatotherhospitalswasslow.
![Page 41: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
40
Atthecoreofthefasttrackthinkingislogisticthinking,includingbookingacrossdepartmentalboundariestoensurecoordination.Professionallyitrequiresadescriptionofwhichservicesshouldbeprovidedandthetimesequenceoftheseservices.
InMarch2010ariderwasaddedtothefasttrack,namelythatpatientsnowhavetherighttohavea
‘pathwaycoordinator’,i.e.apersonwhocoordinatescareforthepatient
Asmentionedthisapproachisanimprovementfromthepatientperspectiveandalsosupportedbyscientificevidence.Otherareascouldtakeadvantageofthesamethinking.
Workinprogresson(coherent)patientpathwaysMuchtreatmentandrehabilitationconstituteachainofservicesofferedbydifferentprovidersandauthorities.Typicallythereisatriangle:Hospital–generalpractice–municipality‐occasionallycalledthe
BermudaTriangletoindicatepoorlycoordinatedcare.Inthe2009surveyofpatientexperiencealmost20%ofthepatientsfoundthattheirGPhasbeentoobadlyinformedbythehospitalandforthecooperationhospital–municipality17%foundthatcooperationhadbeenverybadorbad54.Unfortunatelythereisno
informationonhowmunicipalitiesandGPscooperatedwiththehospital.
The2007healthcarereform(amalgamationofthecountiesinto5regionsandmoremunicipalinvolvementinhealthcare)alsointroducedtheso‐called‘healthagreements’wherehospitals‐‐GPsandmunicipalitiesagreeonforinstancestandardsfordischargefromhospitals,onproceduresforhospitaladmissionetc.All
ofthishasthepotentialforbettercoordinationofpatientpathwayswhentreatmentbymentionedproviderisinvolvedinthepatientpathway.
Coordinationgraduallybecomebetterandtheuseofhealthagreementsand‘pathwaycoordinators’maybethewayforwardinareawherethepast25yearshaveseenvariousinitiatives–mostwithoutgreat
effect.
Increasedfocusonpalliativecare/endoflifecareTheterminalstagesoflifeareattractingincreasingattentionaswitnessedbypalliativeteamsandhospices.Thefirsthospicewasestablishedin1992atSkt.LucasStiftelsen.AsofOctober2010therewere17hospiceswithatotalof196beds55.Todayhospiceiscoveredbythefreechoiceofhospitalanditisfreeto
thepatientprovidedthatreferralcriteriaarefulfilled.In2009thepriceperbeddayatahospicewasaroundDkr.4,500(DanskeDiakonhjem).
WHOdefinespalliativecareasanapproachthatimprovesthequalityoflifeofpatientsandtheirfamiliesfacingtheproblemassociatedwithlife‐threateningillness,throughthepreventionandreliefofsufferingby
meansofearlyidentificationandimpeccableassessmentandtreatmentofpainandotherproblems,physical,psychosocialandspiritual.Palliativecare:
• providesrelieffrompainandotherdistressingsymptoms;
• affirmslifeandregardsdyingasanormalprocess;
• intendsneithertohastenorpostponedeath;
![Page 42: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
41
• integratesthepsychologicalandspiritualaspectsofpatientcare;
• offersasupportsystemtohelppatientsliveasactivelyaspossibleuntildeath;
• offersasupportsystemtohelpthefamilycopeduringthepatientsillnessandintheirownbereavement;
• usesateamapproachtoaddresstheneedsofpatientsandtheirfamilies,includingbereavementcounseling,ifindicated;
• willenhancequalityoflife,andmayalsopositivelyinfluencethecourseofillness;
• isapplicableearlyinthecourseofillness,inconjunctionwithothertherapiesthatareintendedto
prolonglife,suchaschemotherapyorradiationtherapy,andincludesthoseinvestigationsneededtobetterunderstandandmanagedistressingclinicalcomplications.
Palliativecareisespeciallydirectedatpatientswithcancer,althoughtheprinciplesareapplicableforotherdiseases.Atpresentthereare16palliativeteamsandtwohospital‐basedpalliativeunits.
Theideaofpalliativeteamsandhospicescanbeboileddowntothetitleofarecentarticlebythe
acknowledgedwriterDr.AtulGawande:‘Lettinggo.Whatshouldmedicinedowhenitcan’tsavelives’56.Inarecentreportitwasnotedthatfewnations,includingrichoneswithcutting‐edgehealthcaresystems,incorporatepalliativecarestrategiesintotheiroverallhealthcarepolicy—despitethefactthatinmanyof
thesecountries,increasinglongevityandageingpopulationsmeandemandforend‐of‐lifecareislikelytorisesharply57.
Althoughmuchhashappenedthepast10yearsarecentanalysisofwhatmanywouldfindanoffendingterm,thequalityofdeathindex(essentially,whathasbeencalledpalliativecareabove9placedDenmark
on22ndplace57.
Oneofdilemmasiswhereterminalcarebesttakesplace:inthehomesupportedbyapalliativeteam;inanursinghome;inahospiceorinaspecialhospitaldepartment.ThereportfromtheEconomistsIntelligenceunit57alsonotesthatfewnations,includingrichoneswithcutting‐edgehealthcaresystems,incorporate
palliativecarestrategiesintotheiroverallhealthcarepolicy—despitethefactthatinmanyofthesecountries,increasinglongevityandageingpopulationsmeandemandforend‐of‐lifecareislikelytorisesharply.InviewoftheDanishdemographicdevelopmentandthesocial,healthcostsduringthefinalyears
oflifeandthesomewhatunclearlocationoftheresponsibilityforprovidingpalliativecareanationalstrategyisneeded.
ConsiderableinvestmentsinnewhospitalsThegovernmentin2007announcedthat25billionDkr.hadbeenreservedforbuildingofnewhospitalsandrenovationofexistingfacilities.Thisisthelargestinvestmentprogrameverforhospitals.Inadditionto
the25billioncameanestimated15billionfromtheregionsfromsalesofoftencentrallylocatedproperties.Thusatotalof40billionDkr.willbeinvestedoverthecomingdecade.
![Page 43: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
42
ThebackgroundforthismassiveinfusionofmoneywasthereorganizationJanuary1,2007leadingtotheamalgamationofthe14countiesinto5regions.Thecountiesandnowtheregionshad/havethemainresponsibilityforrunningthehealthservice.Thereorganizationnaturallyledtoregionalreorganizationsof
thehospitals.ThisinturnwasnecessitatedbyabrandnewmodelforemergencycarefromtheNationalBoardofHealth.Inthefuturefewerhospitalsshouldhave24/7/366emergencyadmission;Areductionfromaround40hospitalswithemergencyadmissionin2007to21inthecourseof5‐10years.
Figure17showshowtheinvestmentfundshavebeendistributedacross16hospitalprojects.Basically
threenewuniversityhospitalswillbebuilt(replacingexistingones)andtwonewmid‐sizehospitalswillalsobebuilt,andintwootherexistinghospitalfacilitieswillbeextendedsothattheyessentiallyare‘new’.
ThereisnodoubtthatthiswillstrengthentheDanishhospitalsystem.Therearecleardemandsforimprovedproductivityduetobetterphysicalfacilities,butthiscanonlybeachievedbycriticallylookingat
workroutines,patientpathwaysandpatientlogisticsingeneral.Hence,manyinterestingopportunitiesopenupwiththemassiveinvestmentprogram.Thechallengeforhospitalmanagementandclinicalmanagementistotakefulladvantageofthisuniquechanceforreorganizingahospital.
Figure17:Investmentsinneworrenovatedhospitals.Redmarksindicatehospitalwithemergency
admission
Strengtheningofprehospitaltreatment/careInthewakeofthehospitalrestructuringseveralhospitalswillclose–andmoreimportantly–withthe
centralizationofemergencyadmissionstheaveragedistancetoanemergencyhospitalhasincreasedconsiderably.Thisinturnhasledtoastrengtheningofthepre‐hospitalservice.
Overfewyearsthesystemhasbeenoverhauledandreorganized.Nolonger–andnotreallyforseveral
years–doesanambulancejustsignifypatienttransport.Treatmentstartsintheambulance–eitherbyaparamedic,anurseoraphysician–andtheambulanceislinkedtothedesignatedemergencyhospitalso
![Page 44: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
43
thatthehospitalisadvisedabouttheconditionoftheincomingpatientortheambulancestaffcandialoguewithhospitalstaff.
‘Rendezvousmodelshavebeendevelopedasalternativetoambulancesstaffedwithphysicians,i.e.anambulancewithapatientismetbyamobileunitstaffedwithaparamedicorphysician.
Servicelevelshavebeenestablished,e.g.max.15minutesforanambulancetorespondtoanemergency
call.Thisismonitoredcloselybyallregions.
Anewset‐upfordispatchingambulanceandmobileunitshasalsobeendeveloped.Therehasbeenconsiderableattentiontodevelopingmodelsofpre‐hospitalservicetooutlyingareas,includingahelicopterset‐up.
Anissuenotyetresolvedwellisthecooperationwith24/7servicesprovidedbyGPs(out‐of‐hoursservice,
from4.p.m.to8.a.monweekendsand24hoursonweek‐endsandholidays).ThisisasystemorganizedbytheGPsthemselves,buttheco‐operationbetweenthissystemandthelargelyhospitalbasessystemoutlinedaboveneedtobeimprove.
QualityassuranceandmonitoringOverthepasttwodecadesqualityissuesinhealthcarehascometothefore.Thebackgroundwasa
negativeone,namelythatiswasrealizedthatmanypatientsdiedorhadtheirhospitalizationprolongedbecauseoflowtreatmentquality(wrong,insufficientornotstateofthearttreatment).Towitness:InDenmarkitwasestimatedthat1,500–2,000personsdiedduetoadverseevents,thatmedicationerrors
notonlycausesuntimelydeathsbutalsoprolongedhospitalstaywithupto7daysontheaverage,andthat8‐10%ofhospitalizedpatientsacquireaninfection.58TodayDenmarkisintheforefrontregardingqualityassuranceandmonitoring–butnotnecessarilyintermsofactuallymeasurablequalityoftreatment.
Anationalprogramhasbeenestablished.TheDanishHealthcareQualityProgram,DDKM,isamethodto
generatepersistentqualitydevelopmentacrosstheentirehealthcaresectorinDenmark.TheDanishHealthcareQualityProgram,DDKM,providesforstandardsofgoodquality–andofmethodstomeasureandcontrolthisquality.Assuch,DDKMdoesnotguaranteeahighlevelofquality,butenablesprovidersof
healthcaretomonitorand(partially)controltheirqualitylevel.
TheobjectivesoftheDanishHealthcareQualityProgramare59:
• Toavoiderrorscausinglossoflives,qualityoflifeandresources
• Toensurethatknowledgeachievedviaresearchandexperienceisutilizedinallbranchesofthehealthcaresector
• Todocumentworkperformed
• Toachievethesamehighqualityacrossgeographicalboundariesandsectors
• Togeneratecoherenceincitizens’pathwaysacrosssectors–e.g.inthetransitionfromhospitaltolocalhealthcare
![Page 45: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
44
• Torenderqualitywithinthehealthcaresectormorevisible
• Toavoidthatallinstitutionsmustinventtheirownqualityassurancesystem
• Tostrivetowardsexcellence–allthetime
TheDanishHealthcareQualityProgramisbasedonthequalitymethodknownasaccreditation.Thebasicprincipleofaccreditationistodetermineaminimumlevelofgoodqualitywithinanumberofareas,whicharefollowedupfortheirlevelofcompliance.Thefaultsandomissionsdiscoveredintheprocessareused
asanempiricalbasistoimprovequality.AllprivateandpublicDanishhospitalsmustbeaccredited–andthefirstoneshavesuccessfullypassedtheaccreditationprocess.
Therehasbeendebateaboutthevalueofaccreditation,inpartbecausethe(economicandclinical)benefitsarehardtodocument,inpartbecauseitinvolvesquiteabitofpaperwork(“bureaucracy”)60,61.A
roughestimateofthecostsofimplementingtheDDKMisbetween0.7–1billionDKr.‐equaltolessthan1.5%oftotalhospitalexpenditures62.Thebenefits–tobedocumentedsystematically–willcomefromthesavingsduetobetterqualityofcare.
TheDanishNationalIndicatorProject,NIP,willbeintegratedintoDDKM,aswilltheannualsurveysof
patientexperiencedquality3sothatmuchofsignificantongoingqualityinitiativeswillgraduallybecomeanintegratedpartofDDKM.
TheDanishNationalIndicatorProject,NIP,63,64wasestablishedin2000asanationwidemultidisciplinaryqualityimprovementproject.From2000to2002,disease‐specificclinicalindicatorsandstandardswere
developedforsixdiseases(stroke,hipfracture,schizophrenia,acutegastrointestinalsurgery,heartfailure,andlungcancer).Todaydiabetes,depression,birthandchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease(COPD)havebeenadded.TheNIPmodelwillbecomeanintegratedpartoftheDanishHealthcareQualityProgram,
DDKM.
Indicatorsandstandards,seefigurebelow,havebeendevelopedandimplementedinallclinicalunitsanddepartmentsinDenmarktreatingpatientswiththesediseases,andparticipationismandatory.Allclinicalunitsanddepartmentsreceivetheirresultseverymonth.Nationalandregionalauditprocessesare
organizedtoexplaintheresultsandtoprepareimplementationofimprovements.Allresultsarepublishedviawww.sundhed.dkinordertoinformthepublic,andtogivepatientsandrelativestheopportunitytomakeinformedchoices.
Anoteworthyfeatureofthesystemisseenintherighthandcolumnofthefigure.Alltheindicators(of
goodcare/treatment)arebasedongradedscientificevidence.Thepictureforstrokeisnotunusual,i.e.noteverythingthatisdone–andoughttobedone–isfirmlybasedonscientificevidence.Itisnotanargumentagainstdoingitbutcautionsustowardthelackofsolidevidenceandwheremoreresearchis
needed.
ReportingfromNIPtakesplaceinaframeworkliketheoneshowninfigure17Awithinformationfromthepreviousreportingperiodstobeabletotrackchanges.Table2hasbeenpulledtogetherfromthe2009reportonstroke65,66,includingnewindicatorscomparedtofigure17A.Thesystemiscontinuallybeing
refinedandimproved.Table2hasincludedasanillustrationonly.Theoriginalsourcesshouldbeconsulted
![Page 46: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
45
forfullexplanationoftheindicators.‘Standard’istheprofessionaljudgmentofhowmanypatientsideallyshouldreceivetheserviceinquestion(insomeareasitisasubsetofstrokepatients).
Figure17A:Theframeworkforthenationalindicatorproject,NIP
Source:Mainzetal.63
Table2:Qualityreportingforstroke,2009and200765,66.
Indicator StandardFulfilled(2009) 2009 2007
Strokeunit(within48hours) 95% yes 91 85
Antiplatelettherapywithin48hours 95% no 88 87
Oralanticoagulanttherapy 95% no 73 77CT/MRIscanatdayofhospitalization 80% no 71 62
AssessmentbyPhysiotherapistwithin48hours 90% no 75 70Assessmentbyoccupationaltherapistwhitin48hours 90% no 72 66
Nutritionalriskevaluation 90% no 69 66Waterswallowingtestatdayofhospitalization 90% no 61 55Ultrasound/CT‐angiography,neckartery,withinfourdays 90% no 52 35
Mortalitywithin30days 15% yes 11 11
All‐or‐none 25 21(in2008)Note:thenumberofpatientsincludedvariesbyindicator.Atotalof11,421wasavailable,
i.e.asubstantialnumberofpatients.‐11,281wasusedforthefirstindicatorwhilethesubsetofrelevantpatientsofindicatornumber2was7,441etc.All‐or‐none’referstopatientswhoreceivedthefirst9services.
![Page 47: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
46
Thegoodnewsisthatoverallthereareimprovementsfrom2007to2009.Atamorenegativelevelonlytwostandardsoutof10arefulfilled.Now,insensationaljournalism,thiswouldbepresentedas‘scandalous’.Butbeforetoohastyconclusionsoneshouldforinstanceconsidertheevidencelevel,the
circumstancesthatoccasionallymakesitdifficultifnotimpossibletocarryouttheproceduresetc.Notinorderto‘apologize’butinordertounderstand.
Thenextquestionis:Whatistheeffectofcompliance(fullorpartial)withthestandards?Atageneralleveltheanswerisbetterpatienttreatmentandcare.Atamoredetailedandrelevantlevelonewouldwantto
know:Doesitsave/increaseuseofresources?Itisoftenclaimedthatgood/betterqualitycostsmore–butisitsosimple?Secondly,doesmortalitydecrease,andifnotmortalitydoesthephysicalandmentalfunctioningincreaseifall9pointsintable2arefulfilled.Atpresentallofthisitisnotwellexplored,butfor
strokethereareatleasttwoarticlesaddressit.Svendsenetal67lookedattherelationshipbetweendegreeoffulfillmentofstandardsandlengthofstay,LOS..TheyconcludedthatthemedianLOSwas13days.MeetingeachqualityofcarecriteriawasassociatedwithshorterLOS.Thesizeofthereductionwas
between13‐33%.TheassociationbetweenmeetingmorequalityofcarecriteriaandLOSfollowedadose‐responseeffect,thatis,patientswhofulfilledbetween75%and100%ofthequalityofcarecriteriawerehospitalizedaboutone‐halfaslongaspatientswhofulfilledbetween0%and24%ofthecriteria.Palnumet
al68lookedatqualityofcareandshort‐termmortalityforstrokepatients.Theirfindingscanbesummarizedsothat:elderlystrokepatientsinDenmarkreceivealowerqualityofcarethandoyoungerstrokepatients,however,theage‐relateddifferencesaremodestformostexaminedquality‐of‐carecriteriaanddonot
appeartoexplainthehighermortalityamongolderpatients
Withthisextendedstrokeexamplewehaveattemptedtoshowhowqualityismonitored,resultsandimprovement,andconsequencesintermsoflengthofstayandmortality.ThereisnodoubtthatDenmarkisinfront.Therehasbeensomecriticismabout‘bureaucracy’surroundingqualitymonitoring.Itistruethat
collectingthedatadoesconsumeresources.However,inviewofthebenefitstopatientsandthehospitalsthereisnodoubtthatincost‐benefittermsitismoneywellinvested.However,itisimportantwithmoreresearchofthetypementionedintheprecedingparagraph.
WellfunctioningmultileveldemocraticstructuresforintegrateddecisionmakingandimplementationAllpublichealthsystemsneedasteeringstructureforallocationofresources,implementationofpolicy
initiativesandcontrolofaccountability.TheDanishsystemisorganizedasamultilevelgovernancestructurewithstate,regionsandmunicipalities.Theregionsplayacrucialroleinorganizinganddeliveringspecializedcurativehealthcareservices,whilethemunicipalitiesareinchargeofmostpublichealth,
rehabilitationandlongtermcareservices.Thestatesetstheformalframeworklegislationandfinanceshealthcare.Inadditiontolegislativemeasuresthereisalongtraditionforinteractionbetweenthelevels
throughannualnegotiationsandagreementsonbudgetarymatters.Thebudgetaryagreementsdefinetheoverallexpenditurelevels,andspecifymorespecificinitiativesandtargets.Thereareregularfollowupmeetingsonimplementationprogressandresultsin‐betweenagreements.Theprocessofentering
agreementshasservedrelativelywellasamechanismforcoordinatingcentralfinancingandregional/municipalactivitylevels.Theagreementsalsoserveasaplatformforconsensus‐buildingonneworganizationalprioritiesinthesector.Theformalnegotiationstructureissupplementedbyageneral
![Page 48: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
47
traditionforinvolvingdecentralizedauthoritiesincommitteesandcouncilsforreorganizationanddevelopmentofguidelinesandrecommendationsforthesector.Someobserversarguethatthestatehastakenonastrongerhandinsuchnegotiationprocessesoverthepastdecades,yetitstillappearsthatthe
variousnegotiationarenasandprocessesbetweenthestateandregional/municipalactorsrepresentareasonablywellfunctioningmechanismforco‐developmentandcoordinationofpolicyinitiatives.
Thefollowingexamplesofpolicyimplementationsillustratetherelativelywell‐functioningmultileveldecisionstructures:1)theimplementationofacomprehensive“TheDanishHealthcareQualityProgram,
seeabove.Themodelamalgamatedseveraldecentralizedinitiativesintoacomprehensivenationalmodelbasedonacombinationofaccreditationandnationalqualitydatabases.Theannualbudgetnegotiationswereimportantarenasforthedecisionprocessonthe“DanishModelforQualityAssessment”69,2)the
extensivetransformationfromin‐hospitalcaretooutpatientservices,whichhasledtosignificantreductionsinbedtime,andcost.Thetransformationhasbeenimplementedbytheregions,butsupportedbynationallevelpolicy,3)theimplementationofanewhospitalinfrastructure.Inacomparativelightthe
Danishhealthsectorhasshownagreaterabilitytomakestructuraladjustmentsthanseveraloftheneighboring.Thechangeshavetakenplaceafterdialoguebetweenthenationalandregionalauthorities,albeitwitharelativelystronghandfromthestatelevel.
TheStructuralreformof2007alsointroducednewinstitutionalstructuresforcoordinationbetween
regionsandmunicipalities.Theregionsarenowrequiredtoenteragreementswiththemunicipalitieswithintheregiononinteractioninregardstohealthcare–calledHealthAgreements.Theagreementsincludemandatoryelementsonadmissiontoanddischargefromhospitals,informationsharing,
coordinationofrehabilitationetc.TheagreementsarecurrentlybeingevaluatedbytheNationalBoardofHealthbutaregenerallyconsideredimportanttoolsforcoordinationinspiteofconflictingincentivesatthetwolevels70.
Weaknesses
Tensionswithinthedemocraticmultilevelgovernancestructure:Limitedvoterinterestandunclearroleforpoliticiansatdecentralizedlevels.InaprevioussectionwecharacterizedthemultilevelgovernancestructureforDanishhealthcareasreasonablywellfunctioning.Theargumentswerethatthesystemhistoricallyhasbeenrelativelygoodat
adaptingtonewcontingenciesinordertomeetmultiplegoalsofcostcontainment,qualityimprovementandinnovation.Yet,thispictureshouldbemodifiedwiththeobservationthatthereseemstohavebeengrowingtensionswithinthesystemoverthepastdecade.Thesetensionsbetweendecentralizedautonomy
andcentralcontrolculminatedinthestructuralreformof2007.Thereformcreatedfivenewregionsinsteadofthepreviouscounties,andatthesametimestrippedtheregionsoftheirrighttofinancetheiractivitiesthroughtaxation.Theregionsthusbecamefullydependentonthenationallevel,andmunicipal
co‐financingfortheiractivities.
Thesubsequentprocessofcreatingnewhospitalstructureshasalsorevealedastrongerwillingnessfromthecentralleveltodictatedecisionsatthedecentralizedlevel.Regionallydevelopedplanswereinseveral
![Page 49: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
48
casesrejectedbythenationalauthoritiesthattendedtoplaceahigheremphasisonanexpertcommitteeappointedbythestate.
Suchdefactoreductioninautonomyattheregionallevelislikelytoaffectthesupportfordecentralizeddemocraticgovernancenegativelyandtomakeitmoredifficulttorecruitnewmemberstotheregional
assemblies71.Moreover,suchongoingtensionsarelikelytonegativelyaffectthebroaderlegitimacyofthepublicgovernancestructure.Thismayinturnleadtofurtherreforms,andperhapsalsoacceleratethetendencytodemandsupplementaryoralternativeprivatesolutionswiththepotentiallynegativeeffectson
equalityandintegratedplanningdescribedintheabove.
AmbivalencetowardsstrengtheningofpreventionandhealthpromotionThestructuralreformin2007changedtheresponsibilityforprevention,treatmentandrehabilitationbetweenmunicipalitiesandregions72.Oneoftheareasbeingrestructuredwaspreventionandhealthpromotionwherethemunicipalitiesweregivenresponsibilityforandsomesupportingeconomicincentive
topromoteprimary,secondaryandtertiarypreventiveinitiatives.Essentiallythemunicipalitieshavesoleresponsibilityforprimaryprevention(lifestyle–and,intheparlanceoftheActtermed‘citizenorientedprevention).Thereisasharedresponsibilityfortertiaryprevention,e.g.typicallythechronicallyill.(inthe
terminologyoftheActtermed‘patientorientedprevention’)
Atthesametimemunicipalco‐financingwasintroduced.Basicallymunicipalitiespayacertainamounteverytimeoneoftheircitizensusesregionalhealthcareservices.Thus,inthiswaythelawmakershopedtogivethemunicipalitiesanincentivetolookformunicipalalternativestocertainregionalhealthcare
services,e.g.preventrepeatedhospitalizationsbystrengtheninghomeaid,homenursing,orpatientschoolsforchronicallyill.
Mostmunicipalitieshaveintroducedsomepreventionprogramsandcarriedoutsurveys,so‐calledhealthprofiles,tobuildtheirpreventionandhealthpromotionstrategyon;however,thereisstillconsiderable
ambivalencetowardsstrengtheningpreventiveprogramsandtheoptimallevelofpreventiveinitiatives.Theambivalencehasmanyexplanationssuchaslackofevidence,lackoffundinginthemunicipalities,lackofinfrastructure,lackofknowledgeorcompetencesinthemunicipalitiesandlackofeconomicincentiveto
promoteprevention.
Anumberofreportshavetriedtopointoutcost‐effectivepreventiveinitiatives73butthereisstillaconsiderableandprobablyin‐optimalvariationbetweenthemunicipalities.Thereexistsnocompleteorcomprehensiveoverviewofthepreventiveprogramsinthemunicipalities(Due2008;Hansen2008;Hansen
2010;KommunernesLandsforening2008;Sundhedsministeriet,2008),butwebelievethatthereisaconsiderable(butnotnecessarilyoptimal)amountalreadyallocatedbuttheuseofefficientpreventiveprogramsisatanin‐optimallowlevel,toacertainextentdocumentedbytheCommissiononPrevention74.
Withthecurrentfiscalsituation(aswellasthesituationinthenearfuture)forthemunicipalitiesitishardtobelievethatthepreventiveeffortwillincreasebutonecanhopethattheexistingfundingwillbeused
moreeconomicallyrationalonefficientpreventiveprograms.
Oneoftheconsiderableobstaclesinobtainingtheoptimallevelandmixofpreventiveprogramsistheconflictingeconomicincentivesfacingthemunicipalitiesresponsibleforpreventionandregionsresponsibleforprovidinghealthcareservices.The2007structuralreformhaveaddressedthisconflictingandtriedto
![Page 50: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
49
aligntheincentivesbymakingmunicipalitiespartlyresponsibleforfundingofthehealthcaresystemdependingonactualutilizationbythecitizensofthemunicipality.Theideawasthatmunicipalco‐fundingwouldprovidemunicipalitieswithanincentivetotrytodevelopalternativestoregionalhealthcarefor
certainpatientgroups,forinstancepatientswithchronicdiseaseslikeCOPD.However,mostconsidertheseeconomicincentiveseithertobetoolowintherelevanttreatmentareas,ortoogeneral,astheyincludeareaswherethemunicipalitiesinrealityhaveverylittleornopossibilitiesforsubstitution,e.g.pregnancies
orbrokenlegs75‐78.
AmbivalentattitudetowardsexplicitpoliticalprioritysettingTheneedforprioritizationinthehealthcaresystemisacknowledgedbynationalaswellasregionalpoliticians,thepopulationandbyhealthcareprofessionals.DespitethisgeneralrecognitionofthenoformalinfrastructureintheDanishhealthcaresectororauthoritiesfacilitatesmoreexplicitprioritization.
Someofthenationalauthorities,e.g.theNationalBoardofHealthandTheReimbursementCommitteeinTheDanishMedicinesAgency,dotakedecisionprioritizingreimbursementandimplementationofthenewtreatmentsbuttheprioritizationisneitherexplicitnortransparent.InthevisionofTheDanishMedicines
Agencyitisstatedthat“wewillfocusonthehealthandwelfareofbothpeopleandanimalswithdueconsiderationtoaffordableandeconomictreatments”butcriticswouldclaimthatlittleemphasisispaidtocost‐effectiveness,andwhereeconomicconsiderationsaretakenintoconsiderationitisonlyintermsof
theimpactontotalexpenditureratherthancost‐effectiveness.
AsindicatedanumberofnationalDanishinstitutionscontributedirectlyorindirectlytoprioritysettingbyex‐orimplicitlydoingprioritysettingorbyprovidinginformationforprioritysetting.Thefollowingareexamplesandnotanexhaustivelistwhileregionalauthoritiesalsohavevariousinstitutionscontributingto
prioritysetting.
• Nationalboardofhealth–NationalCommitteefortheEvaluationofCancerDrugs(UVKL)Thiscommitteeisanadvisoryassemblywhosepurposeistoadvisetheregionsontheuseofcancerdrugsonanationallevel.IntheirmandateitisstatedthatHealthTechnologyAssessment(HTA)or
mini‐HTAisanappropriateframeworkforprovidingasystematicassessment.ItisstatedthatUVKLdiscussescancerdrugsonthebasisofsubmittedmini‐HTAsfromtheprofessionalassociations,oftenwithaneconomicevaluation(cost‐effectivenessanalysis)aspartoftheassessment.There
hasbeenanumberofHTAcompletedforthispurposebutatpresentnoorveryfewmini‐HTAsarebeingmade.
• TheReimbursementCommitteeinTheDanishMedicinesAgencydecidewhichprescriptiondrugscanbesubsidizedonageneralbasis(generalreimbursement),andwhenapatientcanbegranted
individualreimbursementforspecificdrugs.Thereimbursementisthedeductionfromthepricechargedatthepharmacy.Decisiononreimbursementindirectoperatesasprioritysettingwherecostandcost‐effectiveness,however,onlyisoneofparametersbeingtakenintoaccount.Thereis
noformalrequirementforincludingcost‐effectivenessanalysisinthedecisions.
• TheNordicCochraneCentre(NCC)isanindependentresearchandinformationcentrethatispartofTheCochraneCollaboration.TheNCCprovidessystematicreviewsoftheclinicaleffectsofhealth
![Page 51: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
50
care.Thesereviewscontributetoprioritysettingbyhelpingtoonlyimplementhealthcareserviceswhichhaveproventobeeffective.ThecenterispartoftheCochraneCollaboration.
• InstituteforRationalPharmacotherapy(IRF).TheaimoftheIRFistopromotethemostrationaluseofcurrentandfuturemedicinalproductswithrespecttobothpharmacologicalandeconomical
aspects.Thisaimisdirectedtowardsbothprimaryandhospitalcare.IRFcontributetoprioritysettingbye.g.providingreviewsofnewmedicalproducts,bypreparingpharmacotherapeuticguidelinesforselectedareasinco‐operationwiththerelevantscientificsocieties,byinitiating
projectsandscientificinvestigationsinareasofmajorpharmacotherapeuticandeconomicalconcern.
• ThenationalMini‐HTAdatabasecollectsmini‐HTAsorhospital‐basedHTAs.Thisisintendedtofacilitateprioritysettingatthehospitallevel.Themini‐HTAhasproventobeausefulframework
whichhassomeapplicabilitytohospitallevelprioritysettingbuttherearestillsomeissuesaboutthequalityofthemini‐HTAreports79
• TheUnitforHealthTechnologyAssessmentandEvaluationwithintheNationalBoardofHealthhasuntilrecentlyprovidedcomprehensivenationalHTAsonselectedtopics.
Thedebateonexplicitprioritizationisraisedtimetotimeinthepublicdebateandamonghealthcare
professionals,butnoinfrastructureoragreementshavebeenreachedlikeinothercountries,likee.g.NICEinUK.Politiciansandpublicauthoritieshavebeenreluctanttokeepprioritizationinclosedenvironmentswithlittleornotransparencytothepublic.Therelativefavorableincreaseinthepublicfundingforhealth
care,comparedtootherpublicwelfareareas,havestillcalledforprioritizationbutthecomingyearswithanexpectedlowergrowthinhealthcareexpenditurenecessitateamoretransparentandexplicitframeworkforprioritizationinthehealthcaresector.
Tightbudgetsand/orwrongallocationandactivitybasedfinancingReimbursementofhospitalswaschangedin2002goingfromglobalbudgetingtobecomepartlydependent
onactivityusingaDRGsystem80‐82.Theoverallbudgetcontrolofhospitalexpenditure,whichistheresponsibilityoftheregions,haschangedwiththeintroductionofactivity‐basedfunding(ABF)ofhospitals.ABFhavehadclearprosbypromotingmoreoverviewandcomparativemeasuresofhospitalproductionas
wellasinfluencinghealthprofessionals’mindsettobecomeincreasinglyawareofcostsandcostminimizationinitiatives.SomeperiodswithABFhave,however,alsodemonstratedsomeoftheconsintermsoflowerbudgetsafetyandchangesintheabilitiestoallocatehospitalfunding.
TheintroductionofABFtogetherwiththeintroductionofpatientsextendedfreeofproviderhas
challengedtheregions’abilitiestocontroloverallbudgets.Theregionfacethedilemmathattheyhaveincentivizetheirhospitalstorespondtodemandwhiletheextendedfreechoiceenablespatientstochoosehospitalinanotherregionoraprivatehospitaliftreatmentguarantiescannotbefulfilledbythepublic
hospital.Ontheotherhandregionshavetosafeguardtheoverallbudget,whichmeansthattheyshouldnotincentivizeactivitytoostrongly.Regionshavemanypossibilitiesofsafeguardingtheoverallbudgetfor
theirpublichospitalsbutthemechanismsbywhichtheydosohaschangedconsiderablysincethedaysofglobalbudgets.
![Page 52: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
51
Despitemanymechanismsforbudgetsafeguardingregions’abilitytoallocatebudgetshasbeenseverelychallengedbecauseoftheextendedfreechoicewith1monthwaitingtimeguarantyforallpatientsindependentoftypeofdisease,severityofthediseaseortypeoftreatment.Duetothiswaitingtime
guarantyregionsfacethecompetitionfromprivateproviders(privatehospitalsandclinics)whoareabletoprovidethetreatmentwithinthewaitingtimeguaranty.Regionshavethereforeverylittlecapabilityofreducingallocationoffundingtosomediseaseareasortreatmenttypes,andthishasresultedinin‐optimal
highfundingandin‐optimallowwaitingtimeforsomeminorseverdiseases.
LifeexpectancyandhealthstatusItwouldbeidealifameasureofsuccessintermsof‘health’forthehealthcaresystemexisted.However,thisisnotthecase.Insteadanumberofimperfectandconventionalmeasuresexist.Amongthemislifeexpectancyatbirth,i.e.howmanyyearscananewbornchildexpecttolivegivenexistingmortalityratesat
differentages.MeasuredbythismetrictheDanishsystemdoesnotfarewell,cf.Figure18.
Denmarkwasinthemiddleby1970–butlifeexpectancyalmoststagnated17years(1978‐1995)–andafterthislifeexpectancystartedtogrowthagain.Buttheconsequenceofthestagnationwastoputatthebottomplace,asclearlyseenintherighthandsideoffigure18.Thestagnationispuzzlingandhasbeen
analyzedintensively83,84.ItisstrikingthatSwedenconsistentlyhasbeenatthetop.InarecentarticleDenmarkandSwedenwascomparedwithaviewtothecausesofthisdifferentpattern.Juelconcludesthatlifestyleismainculprit:
“LifeexpectancyinSwedenisnowalmostthreeyearslongerthaninDenmark.Averysubstantial
partoftheDanishexcessmortalityandlowlifeexpectancycomparedtoSwedencanbeattributedtohighmortalityrelatedtoalcoholandtobaccoconsumption.Overall,alcoholandsmokingaccountforalmosttheentiredifferencebetweenDanishandSwedishmenandfor75percentofthe
differencebetweenDanishandSwedishwomen”85Figure18:Developmentinlifeexpectancyatbirth1970‐2008,andsituationin2008
Thisconclusionisbasicallythesameasemergedfromtheanalysesinthemid90ies.Manyinterestgroups
havetriedtotiethelacklusterdevelopmentinlifeexpectancytohealthcarespendingandhaveoftenreferredtotheratherlowDanishhealthcarespendinglevel,cf.above.Whileitcannotberuledoutentirely
![Page 53: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
52
itisnotverylikelythatthisisthemaincause86.Severalthingspointinthisdirection.Firstly,lifeexpectancyisinfluencedbymanyotherthingsthanhealthcareservices,e.g.workenvironmentandlifestyle.Secondly,muchhealthcareisnotdirectlyaimedatprolonginglife,butrathertoalleviatedfunctionallimitations,e.g.
hip‐andkneereplacement,cataractsurgery.Thirdly,lifeexpectancyisnotaverysensitiveindicatorinthesensethatonlyratherdramaticinterventionswillchangelifeexpectancyradically–thereforecastingdoubtontheuseoflifeexpectancyasagoodindicatorofsuccess.
Figure19:Decliningexcessmortalityfordiabeticpatient1997‐2008.
Thelastpointcanbeillustratedbylookingatdiabetes,figure19.Improvementsindiabetescarehasledtoadeclineinmortality(theoverproportionalmortalitythatcharacterizespersonswithdiabetes.Theimprovementsindiabetescarehavebeensosuccessfulthattheyundoubtedlyhavecontributedtothe
improveddeclineintheexcessmortality(comparedtothepopulationnorm)survival.However,thepointhereisthatsuchanobvioussuccessstoryisnotreallydetectableand/oridentifiableinoveralllifeexpectancy.
Twosupplementarymeasuresareofinterest:Selfperceivedhealthandmortalityfromamenablecauses,
figure20.
Afundamentalissuerelatestohowtoattributepopulationhealthoutcomestohealthcare,thebasicweaknessoflifeexpectancyisexactlythelackofahighdegreeofattribution.Oneapproachusesmortalitydata,whicharereadilyavailableatapopulationlevelinmanycountries,andisbasedontheconceptof
‘amenablemortality’referringtodeathsfromcertaincausesthatshouldnotoccurinthepresenceoftimelyandeffectivehealthcare87,88.Itisinnowayaperfectsmeasurebecauseonecanalwaysdebate
exactlywhatandwhatextentsomethingIamenabletohealthcare.Fromfigure19itisseenthatDenmarkdoesnotfaretoowellmeasuredthisway–butneitherdoesSweden.Forselfperceivedhealthwedobetter.
Figure20:HowisDenmarkdoingintermsofamenablemortalityandselfperceivedhealth
![Page 54: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
53
Slowintroductionofnewtreatments?InmanyareasDenmarkhavenotbeenontheforefrontofimplementingnewtechnologiesand
treatments89,90.Theslowadoptionofnewtechnologiesanddrugsmaybeduetothebeforementionedsuccessfulcostcontainmentbutthisisnottheonlyreason.Theawarenessandcapabilitytoimplementnewtechnologiesisanotherreasonasingeneralwhatdeterminesdiffusionofnewtreatmentswhere
economicsisonlypartoftheexplanatoryvariables.
Doauthoritiesdragtheirfeetinintroducingnewtreatments–orputdifferentlyandmoredramatic:Arepatients“denied”accesstonewtreatments,inparticulardrugs?Thisisarecurrentclaim–inparticularfromthepharmaceuticalindustry.Anexampleofsuchaclaimandthereasoningbehindcanbefoundin
oneofmanystatementsfromLIF91..Theheadingwent:‘Danesdonotgetthenewestcancerdrugs”.Referringtoarecentreport92itwasnotedthatcancersurvivalinDenmarkislow.And
“Oneofthereasonsforthesenon‐impressiveresultsisthatDenmarkonlyslowlytakesupthesenewandmoreeffectivedrugs.Thereportshowhowfasteightnewdrugsagainstcancerweremarketed
indifferentEuropeancountriesandhereDenmarksystematicallyhasbeenslowerthanSwedenandNorway.Thus,therearemoreexamplesofdrugshavingbeenusedfortwoyearsinneighboringcountriesbeforeDaneswereallowedtobenefitfromthem”
Thereareatleastthreerelevantissues.First,isittruethataccesstodrugsisslowerinDenmark?Secondly,ifanaffirmativeanswer:Doesitmatter(whatbenefitsareforegone)andthirdly:Whatarethereason?
Asregardsthefirstquestionfigures21and22provideexamplesofresearchunderpinningclaimsaboutslowintroduction.Figure21showsthatthelevelofsalesofthesebiologicaldrugsforrheumatismhave
beenratherlow,whilefigure22showsthatthetimingofmarketapprovalinDenmarkisnotfarbehindmostothercountriesinthetable.Asregardsfigure22thereissupplementaryinformationinthesourceshowingdevelopmentinsales.Marketingauthorizationisonething,actualuseisanother.
![Page 55: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
54
Figure21:Salesof‘biological’drugsfortreatmentofrheumatism93
Thesecondandthirdquestionsabovearebestaddressedtogether.Thereisnoquestionthatthesenewdrugshaveaneffectonthetargetedillness–thatiswhytheyhavetestedthoroughlyinrandomizedtrials.
However,thequestionishowmuchbetterthanexistingtreatmenttheyare?
Oftenimprovementsare‘marginal’,i.e.notreallyabreakthroughwithdramaticclinicalimprovements.Andifthisimprovementcomesatahighprice–whichisoftenthecasewithnew(biological)drugs–thenitisfairtoaskwhetheritshouldbeintroduced.Thisleadsdirectlytothequestionofprioritysetting.In
DenmarkwehaverecentlyseentheestablishmentoftheCouncilforExpensiveHospitaldispenseddrugs(basicallysomeoftheabovementioned),RADS,wherethetwointerlinkedissuesofeffectandcostsundoubtedlywillbediscussed.
Whetheroneunquestionablyshouldconsider‘delayed’introductionofnewtreatmentsasanegativething
isdebatably,butitshouldbediscussedseriouslytoensureanevaluationofwhetheritisrealproblem,notonlyperceivedbythepharmaceuticalindustry.Itshouldbenotedthatapartfromcanceritishardtofindexamplesoutsidetherealmofpharmaceuticals.Forcancer‘experimentaltreatment’(drugs,radiation,and
surgery)hasbeendiscussedforseveralyearsbecauseitwasbelievedthatDanishoncologistsweretooconservativeandsomewhatunwillingtoprovide‘newand/orexperimental’treatments(thatpatientshadheardwereavailableabroad).In2003thesystemwithaccesstoexperimentalcancertreatmentwasputin
placewithadvisoryboard.ThearrangementwasaimedatpatientswithlifethreateningcancerorsimilarmanifestationswheretreatmentpossibilitiesinDenmarkwereexhausted.Theboardadvisesonpatientcaseswheretheattendinghospitalphysicianhasappliedonbehalfofthepatient.Thenumberofcasesis
limited.In2009atotalof341patientshadapplied94.IncreasinglypatientsarenotsendabroadbutinsteadareenrolledintrialsatDanishhospitals.
![Page 56: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
55
Figure22:Nationallaunchdatesfor8cancerdrugs92
Thereversesideof‘tooslowtointroducenewtreatments’istoaskwhetherthereareareaswherewe
havefallenbehind.IntwoareasDenmarkprobablyfellbehindinthe1990ies:Heart(surgery)andcancertreatment.Inthenewmillenniumthishasbeenrectifiedby‘CancerPlanI–III’,thelatestfromNovember
201095‐100.Manyobserverswouldagreethatthecatch‐upefforthasbeensuccessfuleventhoughitisnotyetvisibleintermsof(markedly)improvedsurvivalrates.Forheartsurgerythecatchupstartedalreadyin1993withthe‘heartplan’.In2005theNationalBoardofHealthpublishedastatusreportandnotedthat
weonparwithmostothercountries101,102.
Lackofvisionfornewhospitals,i.e.‘hospitalsofthefuture’andavisionforprimarycareAsnotedinthesectiononstrengthstheDanishStateandtheRegionsarecurrentlyinvestingmorethan40billionDkrinanewhospitalinfrastructure.Thechangesaremadetoaccommodatethenewregionalstructureandfollowingoverallprinciplesofpursuingbenefitsofscaleandspecializationbyconcentrating
activitiesonfewerandlargerhospitalfacilities.Yet,itcanbearguedthatbeyondthesegeneralandsomewhatvaguelydefinedprincipleswithrelativelyweakevidenceforthebenefits,atleastineconomicterms71,thereisalackofcoherentlongtermvisionforthedevelopmentof“hospitalsofthefuture”,and
forcoordinatingsuchhospitalfacilitieswithamodernized“primarycareofthefuture”.Itisobviouslydifficulttoforeseeindetailwhatthefutureneedsandopportunitieswillbe,yetitisequallyobviousthatthereareanumberofdimensionswherecurrentdevelopmenttrendsarelikelytomakeanevenlarger
impactinthefuture,andwhereacoherentstrategyforintegratingalloftheseelementsinaflexiblesolutionhaspotentialtoimprovethefutureperformanceofthehealthsystemsignificantly.However,it
![Page 57: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
56
appearsthatthereisalimitedwillorcapacityinthesystemtobuildsuchacoherentlongtermvisionforhospitalsandprimarycareofthefuture.
Someofthedevelopmenttrendthatshouldbeconsideredinclude:1)therapiddevelopmentofITandtelecommunicationtechnology,whicharealreadytodayhavingalargeimpactonmedicalpractice.This
developmentislikelytocontinueinthefuturewithopportunitiesfordigitalizingmanyareasofthecurrentpractice.Animportantaspecthereisthedevelopmentofdigitalimagingtechnologyfordiagnostics.Thiscreatesnewopportunitiesforsharinginformationacrosstreatmentlevels,andthusforcoordinatingfast
trackdiagnosisandtreatmentpaths.2)Thedevelopmentofcustomizedmedicinebasedongenemapping,willalterthewaywethingaboutmedicationandtreatmentregimes,andwillrequirenewandmoreindividualizedinformationandtreatmentstructures.3)Thedevelopmentofnano‐technologiesfor
operationsislikelytocontinueleadingtomuchlessinvasivetypesofsurgerythantoday,andthusacontinueddevelopmenttowardsshorterhospitalstays,whichinturnrequiresmorecomprehensiveandcoordinatedeffortsintheprimarycaresector.4)thedemographictransitiontowardsmoreelderlywillin
itselfrequireareconfigurationofthefocusinboththehospitalandprimarycaresectors,andnotleastamuchstrongeremphasisoncreatingcoherentpathwaysacrossthesectorboundariesforthemanyelderlypatients,whichoftenhavemultipleconditionsandcomplexcareneeds.5)Atthesametimewecanexpect
otherpartsofthefuturepatientpopulationtohavemanymentalandeconomicresourcesthatcanbeutilizedforself‐managementandactiveinvolvementinco‐productionoftreatment.Thisrequiresinnovativewaysofinteractionbetweenhealthcarepersonnelandpatientsofthefuture.
Inmoregeneraltermsweseeaneedfordevelopingahealthsectorwithamuchstrongerfocuson
innovationandcontinuousintegrationofthemostrecentresearchintopractice.Inthissense“thehospitalofthefuture”ismuchmoreaconceptoforganizationalprocessesandknowledgemanagementthanofphysicalinfrastructure.Similarlyweneedtodevelopaconceptofthe“primarycareofthefuture”which
accommodatesthegrowingneedforintegrationofservicesandthegrowingnumberofelderlyandpatientswithlongtermcareneeds.Itisalsoofvitalimportancethatthe“primarycareofthefuture”developsastrongerfocusoneffectivepreventionandhealthpromotioninordertopreventdiseases,and
todetectconditionsatanearlystage.
Tooslowtakeupofthechroniccaremodel?TheNationalBoardofHealthrelativelyearlytookleadershipindevelopingachroniccaremodel–inpartinviewofthedemographicdevelopmentdiscussedabove,inpartbecausetheprevalenceofchronicillnesseswasincreasingindependentlyofthedemographicdevelopmentduetolifestylechanges.Inanumberof
reportsa‘chroniccare’modeldescribedbelowwasdeveloped103‐110.ItisadefinitestrengththatthechroniccaremodelisbeingpromotedvigorouslybytheNationalBoardofHealth,includingestablishmentofasteeringgroupforchroniccarewithrepresentativesfrommunicipalities,regions,andgovernment,but
unfortunatelynotwithaGPrepresentative.AdynamicprojectonchroniccarehasalsobeenestablishedbytheNationalBoardofHealth.Aweaknessisthattheuptakeofthemodelseemsratherslowandmuch
dependsonthe(good)willofthepartiesinvolvedintheoperationaldetails:Municipalities,GPsandtheRegions.GPsareformallyaregionallyfinancedentity,butrunbyself‐employedGPsoncontractwiththeregion.Therehasbeenmuchtalkandunderstandingbutnotacorrespondinglevelofcoordinatedaction
whereasmanyexamplesofindependentmunicipalandregionalprojectsareseen.Centralgovernmenthasapproved0.6billionDKr.thathasbeenallocatedtoprojectsthatrun2010‐2012.However,onemay
![Page 58: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
57
questionthenumberofproject.Lookingatthelistofprojects110itisclearthatanattempthasbeenmadetoconsider‘everybody’–probablyresultingintoomanyandtoosmallprojectswithnoguaranteethatgoodprojectresultswillbecomepartoftheannualbudgetonceprojectmoneyrunout.
Itisalsoastrength(andaweakness)thatchroniccareisanintegralpartofthecompulsoryhealth
agreements111betweenregions/GPsandthemunicipalities,butithasbeenhardtoobtaincommitmenttoconcertedaction.
TheNationalBoardofHealthdescribesthebackgroundfortheinitiativeasfollows:
“Duetotheemergenceofincreasinglyefficientandcostlytreatmentoptions,anageingpopulationandtheensuingincreaseinthenumberofpeopleaffectedbychronicdiseasesandproblems
recognizedinthecareofchronicconditionsitisnecessarytoidentifytheoptionsforbettercareinconnectionwithchronicconditions,p.4107
Chronicdiseasescanbedefinedbyoneormoreofthefollowingcharacteristics:theyarepermanent,leave
residualdisability,arecausedbynon‐reversiblepathologicalalteration,requirespecialtrainingofthepatientforrehabilitation,ormaybeexpectedtorequirealongperiodofsupervision,observationorcare.Thisdefinitionincludesbothsomaticandmentaldisorders.
Thelistofspecificchronicdiseasesusuallyencompasses:
• diabetes
• asthmaandallergy
• cancer
• chronicobstructivepulmonarydisease(COPD/KOL)
• cardiovasculardisease
• osteoporosis
• muscular‐skeletaldiseases,typicalrheumatism
• psychiatricdiseases
ThechroniccaremodelwasbasicallydevelopedintheUS112.Thebasicideasandissuesarecapturedin
figure23.Startingfromtheleftwehavewhatisformallythe‘chroniccare’model.Anessentialelementisthecollaborationbetweenthehealthsystemandthecommunity(inDenmarkamongotherthingsthemunicipalitiesandNGOs).Anotherimportantelementisselfcare.TheNationalBoardofHealthhasbeen
stronginstressingthiselement103,109,113,106.Animportantelementofselfcareismonitoring–wheretelemedicinemaybecomeanimportanttool.TheNationalBoardofHealthstatesthat:“Thepatients'self‐monitoringofthediseaseshouldbeenhancedandtechnologiesforself‐monitoringshouldbeevaluated
andthequalityofthemonitoringshouldbeassured”,p.7110.
![Page 59: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
58
ThestratificationmodelinthemiddleofFigure23stressesboththedivisionofworkandtheimportanceofprimarycare.Itisofcourseanidealizedmodelbutontheotherhanditalsoshowshowimportantitistodiscussandimplementwaysofensuringthatpatientsasmuchaspossiblearetreatedatthelocallevel.The
workwithpatientpathwaysforchronicpatientsisanimportantwaytorealizethis108.
Figure23:Asnapshotofthechroniccaremodel
TotherightinthefigureiscollaborationtriangleinDanishhealthcare.Thechroniccaremodelisageneric
model–albeitimplicitmirroringanAmericansetting.ThemodelneedstofitaDanishsettingandinparticulartocapturethethreemainparties.Muchisdoneformallythroughthehealthagreements,butmoreimportantlyisthedaytodaycollaboration.Oneparticularchallengeistodecideonwhoistolead.
Therecommendationisclear:“…thegeneralpractitioneristheprojectleaderthroughtheentirecourseofthechronicdiseaseandthatthecontentsofthefunctionareincorporatedintothedescriptionofthecourse.”Thequestioniswhetherthisisacceptedbytheotherpartiesandwhethergeneralpracticeandwill
takeonthistask.
Inviewofthepreviousrecommendationitshouldbenotedthatgeneralpracticealreadyisheavilyinvolvedwithchronicpatient,figure24.Almost50%offace‐to‐faceencountersarewithchronicpatients.
Thetotalityofthechroniccarehasnotbeensubjectedtorigorousevaluation,onlyparts,e.g.theself‐carecomponent,(Lorig1999).Hence,onemustbecarefulnottomaketoosweepinggeneralizationsorclaims.
Thechroniccaremodelcanbelookedatfromseveralperspectives:
• asawayofprovidingcareintheprimarycaresectorandavoiding‘clogging’in‐andoutpatientcare.Inthisrespectthemodelisworthlookingat–inparticularifoutcomesareequalorbetterthanfor
hospitalcare
• producingbetteroutcomes.Arecentsummaryofstudiesseemtoprovidesomesupportforthis,(Coleman2009)
• doesitcreatenetsavingsoratleastprovidecost‐effectivecarecomparedtoforinstancemainlyhospitalcare.Oneshouldprobablynotexpectnet‐savings.(Peikes2006;Peikes2009;Russel2009).
Atbestitiscostneutral.
![Page 60: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
59
Figure24:Chronicdiseasesandgeneralpractice114
Cooperationbetweenmunicipalities–GPs–hospitalsWellfunctioningcooperationbetweenmunicipalities,generalpracticeandhospitalsisessentialnotonlyforpatientevaluationofhealthcarebutalsofortreatmentoutcome.Despitethefactthatithasbeen
discussedforatleast25yearsthereisstillplaceforimprovement115eventthoughmuchworkisbeingdone,forinstanceinconnectionwiththehealthagreements.Inthefirst1985‐whitepaperontheissuecoordinationofchronicallyillpatientswasdiscussed–andsomeoftherecommendationsstillarenot
implemented.
Intwoareasitiscrucialthatthetriangle‐cooperationfunctions:Training/rehabilitationandchroniccare‐wherethelatterinpartoverlapswithcarefortheelderly.Thehealthagreementsalsoplayapivotalroleinthisconnection.Theproblemwiththehealthagreementsarethattheyontheonehandarecompulsory
butontheotherhandnon‐committing,i.e.withouttheconsentofthepartiesitisimpossibletodoanything,forinstancetofollowintersectoralguidelinesfromtheNationalBoardofHealthfortreatmentofthechronicallyill.Inadditiontheeconomicincentivestocooperatearenotinplace.Aso‐calledmunicipal
co‐financingforregionalhealthcareisinplacebutisnottargetedandinmanycasesconsideredveryineffective.
LackoffocusonrehabilitationItisincreasinglybeingrealizedthatrehabilitationisanintegralpartoftreatmentorthefinalpartofacourseoftreatment.Itisalsorealizedthatrehabilitationismorethan‘training’,e.g.traditional
physiotherapy.Rehabilitationcoversphysical,mentalandsocialneedsandthereforeoftenconsistsofamultidisciplinarypackageofservices.
Arecurrentthemeforcancer116,117,heart,andrheumatismpatientsandgroupswithmisc.chronicdiseasesisthattheyreceivetoolittleornorehabilitation118.Rehabilitationisalsoanintegratedpartofthechronic
caremodel.Thereisreasonableevidencefortheeffectofrehabilitation119‐122.
![Page 61: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
60
AccordingtotheHealthActpatientshavearighttoatrainingplanwhentheyaredischargedfromahospitalanditisfoundmedicallyrelevant123.Apartfromspecializedtraining,trainingaccordingtotheplanmustbeprovidedbythemunicipalitiesthatdecideonboththetypeandextentoftraining.Thereareat
leastthreeproblemswiththisorganization:a)asaruleitisonlytraining,notrehabilitationthatisoffered,b)economicincentivesarelargelyabsentortoosmall,andc)somemunicipalitiesaretoosmall(populationwise,andthereforeintermsofpatients)tooffertrainingdifferentiatedaccordingtoillness/problem.
OverallthelackofrehabilitationseemstobeaweaknessoftheDanishhealthsystem,althoughcancerplan
IIIshowssomepromise.TheremuchlikelyisaneednotonlytohavealookattheHealthActandsubstituterehabilitationfortraining.Furthermoretheremaybeaneedtolookateconomicincentives.
InequityInequityissueswerediscussedundertheheadingof‘challenges’inpartbecausemostoftheminasenseareoutsidethecontrolofhealthcaresystem,e.g.workenvironmentorlifestyle,withaccesstoservices
beinganexception.Nevertheless,mostlikelymanyconsiderbothinequityinhealthandinequityinmorbidityasaweaknessofthehealthsystem.Ifnot,itisatleastanissueofconsiderablesocietalconcern.
Inequityingeographicalaccesstohealthcarehasonlybeentouchedonindirectlyabove.ThecentralizationofhospitalsandtheshortageofGPsmeanthatpeopleinoutlyingareasareincreasinglyforcedtotravel
furthertoreachhealthservices.Itiswellknownthatdistancetoproviderinfluencesutilizationlevel:thelongerthedistance,thelessuse.
![Page 62: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
61
SolutionsItiseasytocomeupwithproposalsthatwillincreasethebenefitscopeandlevelsofhealthservicesand.
increaseexpenditures.However,thewholepointoftheSWOTanalysishasbeentoidentifyareasworthyofattackbecausetheythreatenthesustainabilityofthehealthsystemasweknowit,runcountertotheobjectivesofthesystem,e.g.equity,orareglaringweaknesses.Ifwearetomakerationaldecisionsabout
improvementsitmustbebasednotonlyonahelicopterviewofthehealthcaresystemviatheSWOTanalysisbutimprovementsmustbeselectedsothattheyhavethebiggestimpactpermonetaryunitexpendedandshouldhavearealisticchanceofbeingimplementableintheDanishhealthcaresector.
TheSWOTanalysiscanbeusedtobrieflytocomparewiththeobjectivesforDanishhealthcaresetoutin
HealthAct:
ObjectiveaccordingtotheHealthAct Comment
Easyandequalaccesstohealthcare
Basicallyfulfilled–eventhoughequalaccessindependentofeconomicmeansalwayswillbeasore
pointaslongasthereisco‐payment.However,aworldwithoutco‐paymentwouldrequireanadditional20billionDKK.oftaxmoney
Treatmentofhighquality
Seemstobefulfilledtoareasonabledegree–but
difficulttodocuments.
Coherentandlinkedservices Anareaforimprovement,inparticularintersectoral
pathways.However,theextentofproblems,i.e.howmanypatientsactuallyexperienceproblems,isunknown.
Freechoiceofhealthcareprovider Fulfilledtoahighdegree
Easyaccesstoinformation NotexplicitlyaddressedintheSWOTanalysis,butthewebsitewww.sund.dkandwww.sundhedskvalitet.dk
attesttothefactthatsomethingisbeingdone.However,thereisnoreadilyavailableinformationabouttheextentofuse
Atransparenthealthcaresystem Difficulttopassjudgment.
Shortwaitingtimefortreatment. Inviewofboththeexperiencedwaitingtimeandthe‘waitingtimeguarantees’,e.g.extendedfreehospitalchoice,thisisreasonablyfulfilled.
![Page 63: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
62
Twomajorchallengeswereidentifiedandwillbecoupledwiththesolutionspresentedbelow.Thesolutionswillnotinandbythemselvesputanendtothechallengesbutcontributetoacopingstrategy:
1. Fiscalsustainability:‐>mechanismsforanexplicitframeworkforprioritysettingandintroductionofco‐paymentinmoreareasofthehealthcaresector
2. Demography:‐>thetwopreviousproposalsandfasterimplementationofthechroniccaremodel
alongwithincreaseduseoftelemedicine
Inthesectiononopportunitiestelemedicinewasmentionedandthereforehasbeenincludedamongthesolutions
Asregardsweaknessestwoimportantareashavebeenidentified:
3. inequity–inparticularinequityinhealth‐>aninequityreducingprojectisproposed
4. preventionandhealthpromotion‐>healthtestandhealthconsultationwithGPisapossibility
5. adverseeventslikehospitalinfections‐>projecttoreducehospitalinfections
6. psychiatry‐>variousimprovementprojects
7. endoflife‐>increaseduseofpalliativeteams
Whatisanaddedlifeyearworth?TheConsensusmodelisbasedontheideathatacost‐benefitanalysis,CBA,iscarriedoutforimprovementproposals.InaCBAamonetaryvalueisattachedtobothbenefitsandcosts–andthemonetaryvalueof
benefits,e.g.anaddedlifeyear,ideallyshouldreflectwillingnesstopay.Asimplewaytopresenttheresultsisintermsofthecost‐benefitratio,e.g.foreveryDKKinvestedtherearebenefitsoftwoDKK.
InhealtheconomicsitisstilltheexceptiontouseCBAbecauseformanyreasonsitisverydifficulttoputamonetaryvaluetoanaddedlifeyearandingeneraltomonetarizehealthgains.Insteadanothertypeof
economicevaluationisused–theso‐calledcost‐utilityanalysiswheretheapproachistoaskhowmuchaqualityadjustedlifeyear,QALY,costsandthencompareacrosspossiblealternativeusesofmoneywithinthehealthcarefield.Forinstance,ifinvestmentsaremadefortherapyX,thecostperQALYisDKK95,000
comparedtoacostperQALYofDKK70,000ifthemoneyalternativelyisusedfortherapyY.ThesimplerulethenistochoosetherapyYbecauseinthiswayonegets‘mosthealthperDKK’.
WithoutgoingintodetailaQALYisaconstruction,whereonetriestocaptureatoneandthesametimetwooftheimportanthealthbenefits:Prolongationoflifeandaddedqualityoflifease.g.(mentaland/or
physical)functioning(“addyearstolifeandlifetoyears”).Sometreatmentsgiveaddedfunctionalabilitybutdonotprolonglife,e.g.ahipreplacement,whileothersaddyearstolife,e.g.alivertransplantation.SobyconstructingaQALYonesotospeakattemptstoamalgamatethesemeasuresintoacompositemeasure
ofhealthbenefit.Thereareatleasttwolimitationsofthisapproach.First,vis‐à‐vistheconsensusmodelonecannotcomparewithalternativeuseofthesamemoneyinothersectors,e.g.infrastructure.Inthepresentcontextthisisreallynotabigproblem.Secondly,certainprojectswithinhealthcareandproposed
below,forinstanceaninstituteforprioritysettingorintroductionofco‐payment,areverydifficult,ifnot
![Page 64: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
63
impossibletotranslateintoQALYies.Considerforinstancewhetherornotweknowifco‐paymentisharmful(orbeneficial)tohealth?
AsregardsthevalueofanaddedlifeaDanishestimate(Nielsen2008)ofDKK200,000perextralifeyearwillbeused.Ithasbeenestimatedbasedonthethinkingbehindwillingnesstopay.Theestimateon
purposeischosentobelowestvalueoutofseveralpossibilities.Thisisdoneinviewoftheuncertaintyofthistypeofestimates.Thismeanscost‐benefitratioslikelywillconservativeestimates.
Forcost‐utilityanalysisQALYthesimpledecisionruleistopickthealternativewiththelowestvalueofcostsperQALYgainedasillustratedabove.However,isdoesnotanswerwhatis‘goodvalue’inthesense
whatisareasonable‘price’perQALY,i.e.shouldoneforinstanceacceptanimprovementthatcostsforinstance2millionDKKperQALYgained?AruleofthumbhasbeenintroducedinEnglandbytheNationalInstituteofClinicalExcellence,NICE,thatusecost‐utilityanalysisforprioritysetting.Theheuristicruleis
thatanythingbelow£20,000isgoodvalueandoughttobeintroduced,whileprojectswithfrom£20,000to£30,000perQALYareworthwhileconsidering,whileoneshouldbeskepticalofprojectscostingmorethan£30,000perQALY.ColleaguesattheUniversityofSouthernDenmarkhavebeenworkingputtinga
monetaryvalueonaQALYakintotheideaofthevalueoflifeyear,(Gyrd‐Hansen2011).BasedonthesamedatasetbutusingdifferentmethodstheyarrivedatwillingnesstopayestimatesperQALYrangingfrom20,404DKK(€2720)perQALYto722743DKK(€96366).Forthisreasonweabstainfromputtinga
monetaryvalueonaQALY.
InsomecasesitdoesnotreallymakesenseeithertoestimateaCBA‐ratioorforthatmatteracostperaddedQALY,e.g.terminalcareorreductionofinequity.Inthisinstance,however,itstillmakessensetocarryoutacost‐minimizationanalysis.Forinstance,ifthreeoptionsareavailableforterminallyillpatients:
hospice,palliativecareandusualcare,thequestioniswhichcare/treatmentmodeistheleastcostlyassumingroughlythesamequalityoflifeforthepatient.Asimilarreasoningmaybeappliedtovariouswaysofreducinginequity.
Allestimatesofcost‐benefitratiosorcostsperQALYareveryroughestimates.Theyarenotbasedon
detailedcalculation.Thereforetheyshouldonlybetakenasanindication.
Telemedicine:Largescalepilotprojectsformonitoringthechronicallyill.Telemedicineisoneofthepossiblesolutionstothechallengesandopportunitiesinthehealthcaresectorinthefuture,inparticularvis‐à‐visthechronicallyill.Todaythereareexamplesoftelemedicinewithinmanyspecialties–fromtele‐psychiatryacrosstele‐dermatologyandtele‐radiologytotele‐rehabilitation.
Manystudiesoftelemedicineinthecurrentliterature,sometimeswithdebatablequalityofthestudydesign,concludethattelemedicinestrategiesarecostsavingorhavethepotentialtobecomecostsaving124‐126.Telemedicinemaysavevaluableresourcesprovidehighqualitytreatment/adviceandmay
compensateforlongerdistancestohospitalsinremoteareas(Medcom2010;TeknologiskInstitut2008;Alectia2010)
Thepossibletypesofinterventionsincludecare/adviceandmonitoringatadistance,informationand
communicationtechnologiesinhealthcare,internetbasedinterventionsfordiagnosisandtreatmentsandsocialcareifthisisanimportantpartofhealthcareandincollaborationwithhealthprofessionals.
![Page 65: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
64
Onetypeoftelemedicineissimplythattwohealthprofessionscommunicateoveradistance.Anothertypeiscommunicationorinteractionbetweenapatientandahealthcareprofessionaleitherdirectlybytalkingorvideoconferencingorindirectlybymonitoringofthepatient’sconditionwithpossiblefeedbacksfrom
thehealthprofessional.
Thedifferenttypesoftechnologieshavedifferentprosandconsandsolvedifferenttypesofissues(DanskSelskabforTelemedicin201;InternationalSocietyforTelemedicineande‐health,2011;Medcom2011;OECD2004).
Todaytherearemanyon‐goingprojects,forinstanceprojectssupportedbyABT(ABTFonden,2011)orthe
projectslistedatthewebsiteoftheDanishSocietyforTelemedicine(DanskeSelskabforTelemedicin2011).Therearealsogoodexamplesofsolutionsthathavealreadybeenintegratedintodailypractice.
Theliteratureontelemedicinehasincreasedinthelastdecadeandaconsiderablenumberofreviewsexitalready,however,themeta‐reviewprovidedbyEkelandetal2010showsthattheliteratureonevidenceon
telemedicineisstillveryheterogeneous136.Aconsiderableshareofthereviewsconcludesthatevidenceispromisingbutincompleteandaconsiderablesharealsoconcludesthattheevidenceislimitedandinconsistent136.Theneedandpotentialfortelemedicinesolutionsisobvious,however,thelimitedand
incompleteevidenceoftheeffectsoftelemedicineisoneofthemainbarriersforimplementationofthesetechnologies.
Anotherchallengefortheimplementationoftelemedicineiseconomicissues.Investmentcosts,costfortraining,reimbursementoftelemedicineservices.Oneofthenecessarypreconditionsforimplementation
oftelemedicineonalargerscaleismorethoroughdocumentationoftheeconomicconsequences.Anumberofreviewshaveconcludedthatthereislackofthoroughandstandardizedmeasuringandreportingofeconomicconsequences137.
Telemedicineisinsomecasesgoingtobecompletesubstitutesforin‐personencounters.However,inmost
casestelemedicinewillnotbeacompletesubstituteforin‐personencountersandsomecombinationwillprobablyberequired.Thisraisesanimportantquestionaboutwhatistheoptimalsubstitutionbetweenin‐personencountersandcommunicationandmonitoringbydistance.Italsoraisesquestionsabouttheneed
fordramaticreorganizationofthein‐personencounterwhilethiswillchangenotonlyinfrequencybutalsoincontent.Italsoraisesquestionsaboutorganizationoftelemedicinesolutionswhereeconomicsofscaleandjointproductioninvolveneedforcentralizationofthepersonnelsupportingthesolutionsstillsatisfying
theneedforoptimalin‐personencounters.
Thefollowingisalistofpossibleorexistingtelemedicinesolutions:
1. Communicationbetweenhealthprofessionalswiththesamedegreeofspecializationacrosstwogeographicalsiteswheretheircommunicationcanbesupportedbyvideoconferencinganddigitalpicturesandonlineaccesstothesamee.g.laboratorytestresults.Thistypeofcommunicationwill
supporthealthprofessionalsincasesoftreatmentofcomplexcaseswheredecisionsontheappropriatetreatmentmaybeimprovedbyinteraction.
Communicationbetweendistantspecializedhealthprofessionalsisnotnewbuttechnologies,e.g.
IT,digitalpicturesfromx‐ray,CTscan,onlinedatabaseswithlaboratoryresultsetc.,willimprove
![Page 66: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
65
thepotentialsofsparring.Thislikely,however,cannotbeexpectedtoresultinlowercostsbutpotentiallybettertreatmentdecisionsimprovingqualityoftreatment.
2. Communicationmayalsosupportlocalorregionalhospitalswhodonothaveaccesstospecialists,ormayhavedifficultiesinhavingspecialistspresentatthehospitalatalltimes.Here
communicationsfacilitiesmayallowspecializedtreatmenttotakeplaceclosetothepatients’closesthospitalwithoutaspecialistbeingpresentatthesiteatalltimes.Itmayalsoimproveflexibilityforplanninginsmallhospitalswhereitistooexpensivetohavea24‐7capacitywith
presentspecialists.Thistypeofuseoftelemedicinemaythereforefacilitatespecializedtreatmentinmoreruralareasanddecreasetheneedforcapacityofspecialistsbeingpresent.
ThistypeoftelemedicineispresentlybeingimplementedinsomeDanishhospitalswheree.g.partsofdiagnosticproceduresareperformedbyspecialistsinanotherhospitalthanwherethepatientis
present.Thereislikelypotentialsavingsofimplementingthesetypesofsolutionsinthefuturebutintheshortrunlargeinvestmentsininfrastructureandfacilitiesareneeded.
Someevidenceindicatethattelemedicinemaybeasafe,feasibleandreliablesystemforprovidingtreatmentwithine.g.acutestrokemanagement,diabetesmanagement,emergency
departments127‐129.Manymoreareaswillberelevantforthistypeoftelemedicine.
3. Yetanothertypeofcommunicationusingtelemedicinemaybebetweenprimarycaredoctorsordoctorsinlessspecializedhospitalcommunicatewithspecialistsathospitaltodecidewhetherthereisaneedforreferralofthepatientorthespecialistsmaybeabletoguidethelessspecialized
doctoronthedistance.Thiscanpotentiallyimprovequalityoftreatment,improveandreducenumberreferralsanddecreasepatients’costsfortransportation.
OneexampleofthistypeoffacilityhasbeingimplementedforcommunicationandmonitoringofnewbornbabiesatÆrøSygehuswhichisaverysmallhospitalonasmallisland.Thishospitalhas
veryfewdoctorsandnospecializedpediatrician.Thissolutionsfacilitatesthatpediatricianscanfollowandadvicehealthprofessionalsatadistancewhichmaybeimportantincriticalfacesofthedeliveryandthefirsthours.Alsoitisimportantinsituationswheretransfersareconsidered
becauseofcomplicationswherespecializedarebetteratjudgingwhetheratransferisneedandwhichtypeoftransferisoptimal.
Anotherexampleisthecommunicationusingvideoconferencingandpictureby3Gmobilephonesbetweenhomecarenursesandspecializeddoctorsjudgingdiabeticwoundsandtheneedfor
treatment.Thissolutionenablesthehomecarenursestoprovidebettercarewitheasyaccesstospecialistssupportingtheirtreatmentandeventuallyassessmentsontheneedtorefertomorespecializedcare.Thissolutionwillsavemoneybyimprovingqualityoftreatmentalsoimproving
qualityoflifeforpatients130.
Telemedicinewithinteractionorcommunicationbetweenhealthprofessionalsinvolveatleasttwotypesoftechnologies.Thefirsttypeinvolvesdirectcommunicationbetweenpatientandhealthprofessionswhereanothertypeinvolvesmonitoringofpatients.
![Page 67: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
66
4. Directpatientandhealthprofessionalcanfacilitatethatpatientsaredischargesearlierfromhospital,avoidadmission,outpatientvisitsorGPconsultationsbycommunicatingwithhealthprofessiononedistancebyinternetorvideoconferencing.
Oneexamplesofthisistelemedicineconsultationsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease
(COPD)patientswherepatientsreceivea“briefcase”withvideoconferenceequipmentaswellasequipmentformedicalcheck‐ups.Thisapproachhasproventoreducethenumberofbeddaysandthenumberofhospitalreadmissionsandpatientshavebeensatisfiedwithbeingdischargedearlier.
ThissolutionisnowusedinpilotprojectformanyofFunen’sCOPDpatients.Thesolutionmeetsthechronicpatient’swishtobehospitalizednolongerthannecessary.Atthesametime,itfreesupresourcesathospitalsbyreducingovercrowdingproblems,especiallyonmedicalwards.The
solutionseemsstilltoincreasetotalcostbecauseofthepriceofthe“briefcase”131.Itcould,however,beexpectedthatthepriceofthebriefcasewillbereducedinthefuturemakingthesolutioncost‐effective.
5. Monitoringofpatients,especiallychronicpatients,provideopportunitiesofdischargingpatients
earlierandavoidingoutpatientvisits.Furthermoreoptimizationoftreatmentbyfeedbackfrommonitoringpotentiallydecreasesorstabilizesdiseaseprogressionbenefitingthepatientbyincreasedqualityoflifeandfewercomplicationsinthefuture.Itisstilltobeprovenwhetherthisis
loweringcostswhichmayintuitivelybeoneoftheconsequences.
6. Yetanothertypeoftelemedicineiswhenpatientsandhealthprofessionalscommunicatewithothertypesofpersonnel.
Interpretationservicesusingvideoconferencingistestedinanationalpilotprojectatthemomentandeconomicanalysisindicatesthatthistypeofinnovationmayreduceunitcostperconsultation
withinterpretationby20‐30%.Considerableinvestmentsaretobemadeimplementingthistypeoftechnologyandthetechnologyinvolve,aswithmanyoftheothertelemedicinetechnologies,majorchangesintheorganizationalroutines132‐135.
ProposalInviewofthedemographicchallengesalargescaleprojectabouttele‐monitoringandtele‐adviceforchronicallyillpersons–andinparticularpersonswithmorethanonechronicillness–isproposed.The
objectiveistotest‘thebriefcase’approachtotele‐monitoring‐andadvicementionedabove.Ithasalreadyshownpromise,butneedsbroaderandmoresystematictestinganddevelopment,ideallywithintheframeworkofaso‐calledpragmatictrialcombinedwitharigorouseconomicevaluation.Rigorouseconomic
evaluationsshouldbeoneoftheelementsofthetesting.AseparategoalwouldbetoestimatehowmanyofthechronicallyillcanhandlethetechnologyandhowmuchIT‐supportisneededathome.
Endpointstobemeasuresare:(functional)healthstatus,useofhealthservices,easeofuseandsatisfactionwiththetechnologyprovided.
Theprojectshouldbeacollaborativeprojectinvolvingahospitalmedicaldepartment,oneormore
municipalitiesandGPs.
![Page 68: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
67
Itshouldbe‘longterm’–i.e.runover2‐3yearsandinvolveasubstantialnumberofpersonswithchronicdiseases.
Funding:(probably)around100milliontoensurelargescaleand‘long’term.ThemoneyshouldcomefromtheABTfund.
Expectedcost‐benefitratio(scaleupresultsfromtheproject):Atleast1:1andideally1:2
MethodsforprioritizationandproposalforaninstituteforprioritysettinganalysesTheneedforprioritizationisobviousingeneralandinviewoftheproblemswithfiscalsustainability.The
methodologyandframeworksforprioritysetting,however,arelessobviousandpresentdifferenttypesofchallenges.Healtheconomistshavelongsuggestedandperfectedeconomicevaluationstosupportdecisionmakingonprioritysetting.Therearestillfewsuccessfulexamplesoftransparentandexplicituse
ofeconomicevaluationforpriorisetting.OneexceptionmaybeNICE(NationalInstituteforClinicalExcellence)inEnglandestablished1999whichisanorganizationalframeworkforprioritysettingexplicitlyapplyingcost‐effectivenessanalysesasanexplicitpartoftheirdecisionmaking.Somereservationsforusing
cost‐effectivenessexplicitlystillremain138,139.
Inviewoftheabovediscussedambiguitytowardsprioritysettingandthefragmentedstructureandnewinstitutionissuggested.AnumberoftheelementsareinspiredbyNICEinEnglandwhereasespeciallythestructureoftheboardfortheinstitutionisverydifferent.NICEisdebatedandhasalsoshownthatthere
arenoeasysolutionstotacklethebasichealtheconomicproblemofhowtobestallocateresourcestosatisfyallhealthcareneeds140,141.Asstatedtheproblemofmakingexplicitprioritiesarenoeasy.“Toalargeextent,denyingaccesstohealthcarebyexplicitmeansisboundtoleadtodiscontent,becausethe
generalpublicinterpretthisasbenefitsbeingdenied.Theopportunitycostargument,whichimpliesthatbenefitsareonlybeingdeniedbecauseevengreaterbenefitscanbedeliveredelsewhere,ismuchmoredifficulttoconvey.Moreover,thetechnicalnatureofNICE’sworkposesapotentialbarriertobroader
publicunderstandingofitsremitandtheprocessesunderlyingitsguidance.”142.AlthoughNICEisdebated,NICEhasalsodemonstratedthatitispossibletomanageanationalframeworkforprioritizationprovidingbetterprioritizationoratleastabetterbasisforprioritization.
Thisinstitutionshouldbeanchoredwithintheexistingnationaladministrativestructurebutmore
importantlyitshouldhaveapoliticalanchoringwithaboardofnationalpoliticianstoinsureitspoliticalsupportaswellasthelegitimacythroughoutthehealthcaresectorandinthepopulationingeneral.
Theanchoringintheexistingnationaladministrativestructureshouldpromoteaquickimplementationoftheinstitutionalandits’contributionsandeasethechanceofsuccessoftheinstitution.Theanchoring
should,however,alsobefreeoftheexistinglimitationsoftheexistingnationaladministrativestructure.Theanchoringmeansthate.g.theNationalBoardofHealth,TheDanishMedicinesAgencyandtheMinistry
ofHealthshouldbeinvolved,butthenewsuggestedinstitutionshouldnotbeembeddedintheexitingauthoritieswhiletheinstitutionshouldbefreetoreachoutintothehealthsystemwithnewapproaches.
Theboardofpoliticiansshouldberesponsibleformakingstrategicdecisionsfortheinstitutionguidinganestablishedframeworkforprioritysetting.Theyshouldnotbeinvolvedinorresponsibleforspecificpriority
![Page 69: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
68
settingssuggestedbytheinstitutionwhilewedonotbelievethatpoliticiansareablenorwillingtosticktoprioritieswhenpressuregroupsraisequestionsthespecificpriorities.Thepoliticiansshouldbeinvolvedinsettingcriteriaforprioritizationandguidingoverallprioritizationse.g.acrosspreventionandtreatment.
ThepoliticalboardshouldhavepoliticalrepresentationfromallpoliticalpartiesintheNationalParliamentandrepresentationfromallRegionalcouncilsandmayberepresentationfrompoliticiansfrommunicipalitiesortheassociationofmunicipalities.
Thisnationalinstitutionshouldhavetwooverallvisions.Theprimaryaimistoincreasethecapacityand
capabilityforrationalprioritizationinthehealthcaresystemlocally,regionallyandnationally.Thesecondoverallaimoftheinstitutionsistosupportspecificprioritizationinitiatives.
Thefirstaimshouldbeachievedbytwotypesofactivities.Firstly,theinstitutionshouldsupportthepoliticalboardinsettingupanationalframeworkforprioritysettingwhichcanbeusedforguidingspecific
prioritysettingsatlocal,regionalandnationallevel.Thisframeworkprovidesoveralldescriptionsofthegoalsforprioritysettingsandprovidesguidelinesforgoodprocessesforprioritysettingatlocal,regionalandnationallevels.AsintheNICEframework,itcouldbeconsideredthatthisnationalprioritization
frameworkshouldincludeanumberofpermanentcommittees.Onecommittee,calledthePartnersCouncil,shouldincludemembersfromorganizationswithaspecialinterestininstitution’sworkincludingpatientgroups,healthprofessionals,NHSmanagement,qualityorganizations,industryandtradeunions.
Theothercommittee,calledCitizensCouncil,shouldhavemembersofthepublicrepresentingthepopulation.
Secondly,theinstitutionshouldofferandsupporteducation,courseactivitiesandconferenceactivitywhichwillenlargecapacityandcapabilitiestocarryoutprioritysettingatlocal,regionalandnationallevels.
Thenationalframeworkrepresentsthepoliticalwillingnessandneedfortransparencyinprioritysettingandtheeducationalactivitiesrepresenttheoperationalcapacityandcapabilitytocarryoutprioritysetting.
Thenationalframeworkshouldbedisseminatedthroughcoursesandeducation.Furthermorethereisagreatneedforeducatingpoliticians,hospitalmanagers,healthprofessionalsandadministratorstobe
acquaintedwithmethodsforprioritization.Themethodsforprioritizationsincludeknowledgeonevidence‐basedpractice,clinicalprioritysetting,economicevaluation,healthtechnologyassessment,etc.Regardlessofhighlyeducatedpersonnelinthehealthcaresectorandintheadministration,thereisstillagreatneed
foreducationandtraininginmethodsforprioritysetting.Mostoftheinstitutionsresourcesshouldbeusedfortheseeducationalactivities.
Thesecondaimoftheinstitutionistosupportspecificprioritizationinitiatives.Thisshouldbeachievedbycollectingandinsomecasescoordinatingprioritysettingfromtheexistinginstitutionsororganizationsand
byinselectedcasesassistingthespecificbasisforprioritysetting.Itisimportantthatthisinstitutionpromotestheuseofthenationalframeworkforprioritysettingbyusingtheactualprioritysettingsfromtheothernationalauthorities.Also,itisimportantthatthebasisforprioritysettingiscoordinated.
Denmarkcannotaffordtoproduceallmaterialforprioritysettingandweshouldthereforebenefitsfromasmanyreliableforeignsourcesforrelevantmaterialaspossible.Theinstitutionsshouldthereforebe
responsibleforfacilitatingreliableandeasyaccesstorelevantinformationusefulforprioritysetting.Ofspecificactivitiesonecouldimagineprofessionalassistancefordoingliteraturesearchesandassistancefor
![Page 70: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
69
specificevaluationslikesystematicreviews,HTAsandeconomicevaluation.Anothertypeofactivityistosupportpermanentcommitteesresponsiblefordevelopingguidanceprogramsaccordingtothenationalframework.
Thereareatleastthreetypesofcoststhatshouldbeconsideredwhenimplementingthistypeof
institutions143.First,thecostofrunningtheinstitutionitselfandthesupportforanationalframework.Second,thecostofprovidingeducationprograms,coursesandtheresourcesusedtosupportthebasisforcarryingoutprioritization,bethatreports,notesorevaluations.Third,thecostofenforcingthepriority
settingdecisions.
Thefirsttwotypesofcostsmaybeconsiderableseenthroughoutthewholehealthcaresectorbutthethirdtypeofcostshouldnotbeneglected.Thistypeofcostislessvisibleandcannotbemeasuredbutconsiderableresourcesmaybeneed(andalreadyusedinthecurrentsituation).Toreducethethirdtypeof
costitisimportantthatanationalframeworkforprioritizationisgeneratedandthatthisframeworkhavepoliticalandadministrativelegitimacy.Aninvestmentinanationalinstitutionsupportanationalprioritysettingframework,whichisaveryvisibleamountofresourcesandseeminglyanincreasetothecostofthe
healthcaresystem,maynotseemobviousinthecurrentsituationwherehospitalslackmoney.However,itisarguedherethatbycreatinganationalprioritysettingframeworkandbyincreasingthecapabilitytocarryoutprioritysettingtheseresourcesareeasilysavedbyimprovingprioritysettinginthehealthcare
sector.SomeoftheexperiencesfromNICEindicatethatprovidinganationalframeworkforprioritysettingiscost‐effectiveandinsomecasescostsaving,seehttp://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whatwedo/niceandthenhs/CostSaving.jsp.
Establishingamoretransparentandsystematicnationalprioritysettingframeworkisintuitivelyappealing
andwillprobablyalsoleadtomoreefficientuseofresourcesandmorelegitimateprioritysetting,Yet,itshouldbeemphasizedthatthereislimitedsolidevidencethatsuchanexplicitnationalframeworkforprioritysettinghasactuallyimprovedtheefficiencyandlegitimacyinthecountrieswhereithasbeen
established.Someoftheconcernsincludethecostandlogisticsofprovidingupdatedinformationforalltypesoftreatments,therelativelylengthyprocessofcollectingandevaluatingevidence,thefactthattheactualcost/effectivenessofhealthtechnologiesvariesconsiderablyaccordingtotheorganizationalchoices
forimplementation,andthatthemethodsforevaluatingpreventionandhealthpromotionactivitiestendtobeunderdeveloped.
AnationalinstitutionwithanannualbudgetofaroundDKK50millionissuggested–enablingastaffinglevelof15‐20personsandfundsforcommissioningstudiesfromoutsideanalysts.Inviewofthetotal
publicexpenditurebudgetthiswillbelessthan0.5%.
Itisveryhardtoestimatetheeconomicbenefitsofaninstitutionforanalysessupportingprioritysettingbecausemuchdependsontheimpactoftheanalyses,i.e.willtherecommendationsbefollowed.Therearenumerousstudiesshowingnet‐savingsifforinstancesuggestedtreatmentguidelinesarefollowed.Hence,
itdoesnotstretchtheimaginationtoassumethatatleast50millionDKKcanbesavedbyfollowingadviceoncost‐effectivenessoradviceontreatmentguidelines.Inotherwordstherewillbeatleastacost‐benefit
ratioof1:1andmostlikelymuchhigher.However,itwouldbeirresponsibletotrytobemoreexactbecausenumerousun‐testableassumptionswouldhavetobemade.Thereisnodoubtthatifonelookedat
![Page 71: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
70
theestablishmentoftheInstituteofRationalPharmacoTherapywithabout10employees(IRF2011)fromacost‐benefitperspectivethecost‐benefitratioishigh.
CopaymentThereisnowayaroundnotaddressingfiscalsustainability.Inthesectiononchallengesitwasnotedthattherewerebasicallythreewaysofcopingwithfiscalsustainability:1.‘overproportional’growthofpublic
expendituresforhealth(atthecostofotherpublicexpenditureareas),2.taxincreases,3.co‐payment,and4.acombinationofthefour.Itisunlikelythatthechallengecanandwillbemetbyjustoneofthefirstthree.
Tomostpoliticalpartiesco‐paymentisasacredcow,soittakesconsiderablecouragetocomeupwitha
proposal.Thecuewordinthedebateis‘inequityinaccesstohealthcare’followedbyargumentlikemanycannotaffordit(orisitthatmanydon’tgiveithighenoughpriorityinthehouseholdbudget?)orthatpostponementofuseofhealthcarebecauseofco‐paymentmayharmhealth.
CopaymentinDenmarkandtheNordiccountriesIn2008privateexpenditures(=co‐payment)amountedto21.8billionDkr.Thisisequalto15%ofthetotal
sumofhealthexpenditures,upfrom12%in19992.Itisdebatablewhatthebasisforthiscalculationshouldbebecausepartsofmunicipalnursinghomeexpendituresarepartofthebase.Iftheprivateexpendituresarecalculatedfromabaseofregionalpublichealthexpendituresthepercentagein2008
wouldbearound18%.
Figure25:Co‐paymentinDenmark:Categoriesanddevelopment1993‐2007144
![Page 72: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
71
Themaincategorieswithco‐paymentinDenmarkareseeninFigure25.Themaincategoriesaredrugsandadultdentaltreatmentwitharound30%eachoftotalco‐payment.Physiotherapyhasbeenincreasingovertheperiod.Aspercentageofdisposableincometherehasbeenanincreasefrom2.2%to2.4%in2007.
HospitalizationexistsinFinland,NorwayandSweden,Figure26.Itshouldbenotedthatthereisasimilar
concernforequityintheotherNordiccountriesasinDenmark.
Figure26:Co‐paymentintheNordiccountriesasofJanuary2010145
ProposalTheessentialelementsofthisproposalhavebeenliftedfromtheWelfareCommission’sproposalfrom
2006146.Theessentialelementsoftheproposalhasbeenpulledtogetherintable3(tables15.1and15.2intheWelfareCommissionsreport)(Velfærdskommissionen2005)
Thismeansthatservicesthathavebeenfreeatthepointofconsumptionformorethanacenturyormorewillbecoveredbyco‐payment.Thelevelofpayment,column2intable3,doesnotdeviatefromtheother
Scandinaviancountries,ifanythingslightlylower.
Thenetcontributiontofinancingofhealthcarewillbearound2billionDkr.However,therewillsomenetsavingsbecausedemandedservicevolumewilldecreaseasthepricerisesfrom0to20‐150Dkr.pervisit.Thedecreaseinexpenditureswillbearound1.3billionDkr.(column4).Thisisimportantforanother
reason,namelythatitfreesupcapacityinthatthetotalvolumeofservicesisexpectedtodecreaseby25%(maybeabitoveroptimistic.Thedecreasemorelikelywillbeinrangeof15‐25%).The‘excess’capacitywillcreateroomfortheincreaseddemandthatovertheyearswillcomefromtheagingpopulation,butinthe
shorttermalsomeansadecreaseinincomeforGPsandspecialists.
![Page 73: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
72
Table3:Co‐paymentproposalbytheWelfareCommission:feeandtotaleffects
Co‐payment,Dkr.
TotaleffectBillionDkr.
Ofwhichvolumedecrease Revenue
Generalpractice 1.4 0.6 0.8
*consultation 75
*telephoneore‐mailcontact 20 *homevisit 150
Out‐of‐hoursservice,GP 0.3 0.1 0.1*consultation 100 *telephonecontactandhomevisit 20
*telephonecontact 50
*homevisit 150 Consultationwithspecialist 100 1.0 0.5 0.4
A&Evisit 150 0.2 0.1 0.1Visitout‐patientdep. 125 0.4 0.0 0.4
Hospitalization 50/perday 0.2 0.0 0.2TOTAL 3.4 1.3 2.0
Note:ItisassumedthatutilizationofGPservices,specialistconsultations,andA&Evisits
decreaseby25%aftertheintroductionofco‐payment.Hospitalizationsandvisitstooutpatientdepartmentsarenotaffectedbyco‐payment.‐Numbersdonotaddupduetorounding‐off.
TocounterinequityissuestheWelfareCommissionintroduceaceilingforco‐paymentequivalentto1%of
income,i.e.whentotalpaymentduringayearreached1%ofincome,servicesagainbecomefree.Thepriceforthisceilingisareductionofrevenuebyalmost38%(thisreductionhasbeenincludedinthenumbersincolumn5intable3.The1%ceilingmeansthathighincomegroupspaymoreinabsolutetermsthanlow
incomegroups.Thereareotherwaystominimizedistributionalconsequences,forinstanceanabsoluteceilingforeverybodylikeinSweden,forinstanceDr.1,500butsuchasystemwouldbemoreunfairthananincomeceilingbecauseitwouldweighheavieronlowincomegroupsthanhighincomegroups.Another
approachwouldbetofollowthemodelforsubsidiestoprescriptionmedicine,whereco‐paymentdecreasesbyincreasinglevelofuseandbecomezeroafteracut‐offlevelhasbeenreached.
TheWelfareCommissiondidnotincludethecostsofadministeringtheco‐paymentscheme.Itobviouslywillnotbefree.Administrationcostswilldependonhowtheco‐paymentschemeisadministered.Ifitis
donebyusingtheexistingsystemsforreimbursementofGPsandspecialists,e.g.thataninvoiceissenttopatientseveryquarterbasedontheelectronicallysubmittedreimbursementclaimsfromGPsandspecialists,thenitcanbeadministeredatfairlylowcosts.Forthehospitalsaco‐paymentmodulecanbe
addedtotheelectronicpatientrecordsystem.BoththeGP/specialistsystemsandthenewco‐paymentmoduleforhospitalcarecanbelinkedtothetaxsystemtomonitorthepercentageofincomegoingtoco‐payment.Itisassumedthattheadministrationcostswillbe100‐150millionDkr.
![Page 74: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
73
Ifweassume150millionDkr.peryear,thismeansthata“cost‐benefitratio”of13willbetheresult.However,itshouldbenotedthatitisnotacost‐benefitratiointheusualsenseofthewordbecausethebenefits(=revenues)cannotbyanystretchofimaginationbeinterpretedaswillingnesstopay.Inaddition
thebenefitsstemmingforcreatingmorefiscalsustainabilityhasnotbeencalculatedeither.
WithintheDanishsystemofvoluntaryhealthinsurancetheintroductionofco‐paymentwillleadtoincreaseddemandforinsurancein‘denmark’thatessentiallyisa‘co‐paymentinsurance’thatreimbursespatientsforpartoftheirco‐payment.Fromatheoreticalandempiricalpointofviewthiswouldlessenthe
volumeimpactofco‐paymentandhencethe‘savings’duetodecreasedvolumeofutilization.
Improveequityinhealth/useofhealthcareAsnotedinthechallengesection,therearethreedifferentequityissues:Access,utilization,andoutcome(mortalityandmorbidity).TheHealthActonlymentionsequityinaccesswhilethenationalpolicyonpreventionalsomentionsequityinoutcomes.Asshownabovetherearenoseriousproblemswithequityin
accesswhilethereareclearsocialgradientsinoutcomeandunderlyinglifestyle.
Theissueofinequityinhealthisanimportantanddifficultchallenge.Persistinginequityisproblematicinandbyitself,asitrepresentsfailuretoliveuptothebasicgoalsofourhealthsystem(totheextentthatthehealthcaresystemistherelevantcausalparty).Yet,thereareotherreasonsforfocusingonhealth
inequity,asthepartofthepopulationwithworsthealthstatusaccountforamajorpartofthehealthexpenditure.Bytargetingthisgroupwemaythusachieverelativemorehealthgainforourinterventionthanbyabroaderstrategy.However,theproblemisthatthereismuchlessagreementonpossiblemeans
toimprovingequityinhealthbecausethecausalmechanismsaredifficulttoattackandinmanycasesarelocatedoutsidethehealthsystemnarrowlydefined.
Publichealthstudiesindicatethatthedeterminantsofhealthareverycomplex,e.g.figure10above,andincludetheinteractionbetweengeneticendowments,physicalandsocialenvironments,prosperity,
personallifestyleandperceivedwellbeingalongwiththehealthcaresystem(Evans1994;Marmot2004).Thedifficultyindesigninginterventionsisthatwedonotknowtheexactinteractionbetweenthesefactors,andthatindividualresponsestointerventionstendtovary.Yet,onethingiscertain.Itisnotenoughto
introducechangestothehealthcaresystemperseinordertoaffectinequitiesinhealth.Arangeofsupplementaryinterventionsshouldbeconsidered.First,itiswellknownthatlifestyleinducedillnessesaremoreprevalentinsomepartsofthepopulationthaninothers.Obesity,smokingandalcohol
consumption,andtherelatedillnessesofthecardio‐vascularsystemandvariousformsofcanceraremoreprevalentinsomesocialgroupsthaninother.Itthereforeseemsthatatargetedinterventioninthisgroupmighthavesignificantpotentialforpositiveimpactonhealthequity.Yet,theimpactwilldependonhow
theinterventionisdesignedandhowthegroupresponds.Themostradicalinterventionwouldbetobanaccesstocertaintypesofsubstances(alcohol,tobacco,fattyfoods),ortomandateexercise.However,suchinterventionsarehardlyfeasibleordesirable.Alessradicalroutewouldbetorestrictaccesseitherby
makingitdifficulttoobtainthesubstancese.g.bylimitationsinsalesoutlets,ortobanuseofthesubstancesinparticularareasandatparticulartimes.Anotherwayofrestrictingaccessisviaprice
mechanisms,wheretaxescanmakethesubstancerelativelymorecostly.Alloftheseinterventionsarealreadyusedtosomeextent,althoughDenmarktendstohavefairlyliberalaccess.Wepredominantlyrelyonthepricemechanism,andlatelyalsorestrictionsinuseatparticulartimes.Theproblemwithrelyingon
![Page 75: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
74
pricemechanismsisthatitcanhaveunintendedconsequencesforotherlifestylechoices.Highpriceofalcoholandtobaccomayleadtolowerconsumptionofhealthyandmoreexpensivefood.
Restrictionsinaccesstofattyfoodsareverydifficulttoenforce.Anotherroutecouldbetomakehealthierfoodsmoreeasilyavailablee.g.byreducingtheVATonselectedtypesofgoods.Thismightinducesome
consumerstoshifttheirconsumption.However,wedonotknowtheexacteffect,asfoodconsumptionisdeterminedbyarangeofculturalfactorsinadditiontopricerelations.Itisthereforelikelythatsuchaninterventionmustbecombinedwithtargetedinformationcampaignsetctohavefullimpact.
Inequitiesinuseofhealthcaremayappeareasiertochange.Yet,likefoodconsumptiontheuseofhealth
servicesdependonarangeofculturalfactorsinadditiontothepracticalavailability.Culturalfactorsaffectboththedemandside,e.g.intermsofhowoftentheindividualwantstoseeahealthprofessional,andthesupplysideintermsofhoweasyitisforthehealthprofessionaltoassesspotentialhealthproblemsand
thusmaketherightdiagnosticandtreatmentchoices.Culturalfactorsalsoaffectissueslikecompliancewithtreatmentregimesandwhetherornotthepersonengagesinlifestylechangesthatcansupport(orworsen)thetreatmenteffects.
Duetothecomplexitiesanduncertaintiesofbothdirectandindirecteffectsitisinherentlydifficulttomake
preciseestimatesofcostandbenefitsofpublichealthinterventions.ThenationalDanishCommissiononPrevention74notedthispointintheirreportfrom2009.Yet,theycalculatedcost‐effectivenessofanumberofinterventions,andconcludedthate.g.adoublingofthetaxationlevelfortobaccoandalcoholwaslikely
tohavenetbenefits.Andmoregenerallythatacarefullydesignedsetofinterventionsagainstthemainpublichealthproblemsofsmoking,drinking,excessiveeatingandlackofphysicalexercisecouldprovideoverallnetbenefit.TheCommissiondidnotanalyzeconsequencesforhealthequity,butasstatedinthe
abovethereareinequitiesintheengagementinriskybehavioracrossdifferentsocialgroups,andinterventionstargetingsuchbehaviorarethuslikelytohaveaninequityreducingeffect.
ProposalTheonlywaytogatherevidenceonhowtopossiblychangethesocialgradientinlifestyleandhealthistoconductsomekindofexperiment.Itisnoteasy,butstillfeasibleisaconcertedeffortisputintoitfromforinstancedepartmentsofoccupationalmedicine,GPs,municipalitiesandleastbutnotlast:companies.Itis
importanttomovefrommeasuringandtalkingaboutinequityandtrytodosomethingaboutit.
Aprojectisaimedatlow‐education,low‐incomegroupsthatareoccupationallyactive;typicallyun‐skilledandtoacertainextentskilledpersons.Theaimisinfluencethelifestyleandhealthstatus.Themostlikelysettingisanumberofcompanieswithrelativelymanyemployeesinthisgroup.
Theprojectshouldbelongterm,i.e.2‐3years,inordertobeabletodetectdifferences–andshouldbe
coupledwithaanadditional2‐3yearsoffollowuptoevaluatewhetherapossiblychangedlifestyleislasting.
Aprojecttoabout150millionDKKisenvisaged.Agoodevaluationshouldbeincluded,alsoincludinganeconomicevaluation.However,theimportantthingsassuchisnoteconomicbenefits,butratherwhat
doesitcosttochangethesocialgradient.Hence,inmanyrespectsitwouldbeabsurdtothinkintermsofa
![Page 76: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
75
cost‐benefitratio.Therelevantapproachwouldbeacost‐utilityapproachbasedonqualityadjustedlifeyears.
Itisimportantthatthemoneyconcentrateonafewsubstantialprojectsandnot‘spreadthin’onmanyprojects.Ifthelatterapproachisfollowed–alltoocommoninpubliclyfinancedprojects–thenitis
unlikelythanitispossibletodetectdifferences.
ReducingthenumberofinfectionsandadverseeventsThereismuchfocusonneworimprovedtreatmentsandtheirclinicalbenefits.However,inmanyrespectsthereareevenbiggerbenefitstobegainedintermsofimprovedsurvivalorbetterfunctionalstatustobegainedbyimproveorganizationalquality.Andevenmoreinteresting:Whilenewandimprovedtreatments
mostlikelywillleadtoincreasingexpenditurelevel–despite‘good’cost‐effectivenessratios–improvedorganizationalqualitymostlikelywillleadtonetsavings.
Therearethreetypesofquality:Patientexperience/satisfaction,professionalqualitylikeNIPdiscussedabove,andorganizationalquality.Organizationalqualityisaboutworkprocesses,structure,and
organization.Inmanyinstancesorganizationalqualityisaprerequisiteforbothprofessionalandpatientexperiencequality:wellorganizedprocessescanhelpsupporttimelyandprofessionallycorrecttreatmentandmuchofwhatpatientsexperiencedependshowwellthingsareorganized.
Toaconsiderableextenttheunderlyingreasonsforinfectionsandadverseeventsisrelatedto
organizationalqualityinthesensedescribe.Hygiene–personalandwithinthehospital(cleaning,sterilizationofutensilsetc.)isverymuchaboutworkprocesses.Soareissuessurroundingmedicationerrors.Itisincreasinglybeingrealizedthatimprovingorganizationalqualitymaysavemoneyaswitnessed
byarecentheadingonthewebsiteoftheprojectSafePatient:“Thehealthsystemofthefuturecannotaffordwasteanderrors.Patientsafetycanbepartofthesolutiontoeconomicchallengefacingthehealthsystem”(SikkerPatient2011).
ProposalTheinterestingthingaboutdecreasingthefrequencyofhospitalinfectionsandadverseeventsisthatatthetechnologicallevelitisnotverydemanding.Thehurdleistochangebehaviorandingrainedworkroutines.
WHOhasshownintheproject“SafeSurgerySavesLives”adherencetoprovenstandardsintheformofasimplechecklistwith19itemshasimprovedcompliancewithstandardsanddecreasedcomplicationsfromsurgeryineightpilothospitalswhereiswasevaluated,(Gawande2009;WHO2009;Haynes2009).
HospitalscurrentlyusingtheWHOSurgicalSafetyChecklisthavebeguntocollectlocalevidencethattheChecklistmakesadifferenceinsurgicalcareapartfromwhatwasdocumentedintheHaynesarticleintheNewEnglandJournalofMedicine.AccordingtotheWHOwebsiterecentlyStanfordUniversitypresented
theirfindingsatthe2010AmericanCollegeofSurgeonsAnnualClinicalCongressheldinWashingtonD.C.ResearchersatStanfordfoundthattheobserved/expectedmortalityratiodeclinedfrom.88inquarteroneto.80inquartertwowiththeuseofamodifiedversionoftheWHOSurgicalSafetyChecklist.Moreover,
theyfoundthattheuseoftheChecklistincreasedthefrequencyinwhichstaffreported"PatientSafetyNeverEvents"whilethenumberofPatientSafetyNeverEventsthatwererelatedtoerrorsor
complicationsdecreasedfrom35.2%to24.3%.Overall,theChecklisthasnotonlyimpactedoutcomes,butithasalsoimprovedcommunicationamongthesurgicalteam,andthusqualityofcare.
![Page 77: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
76
Similarly,againandagainithasbeendocumentedthatimprovedhandhygieneleadstoadecreaseinhospitalinfections.
Theoverallproposalissimplytoimplementinitiativesofthekindjustdescribed.Onemightevencontemplatetomaketheuseofchecklistscompulsory.Suchprojectswouldbeself‐financingwithinayear.
Ithasbeenestimated(veryroughly)thatreducingadverseeventsandinfectionswouldyieldacost‐benefitratiointheorderof1:17andlikelyevenhigher,(Pedersen2009).
ScreeningfordiabetesandhealthcheckupingeneralpracticeCloseto85%ofDanesseetheirGPduringatypicalyear.Thereforeiswouldbenaturaltousethisfactinasystematicwaybyintroducingbi‐annualcheckupscombinedwithscreeningfordiabetes(type2).The
check‐up–called‘healthtestandhealthconsultation’’–hasbeenshowntobecost‐effectiveintheEbeltof‐experiment(Jacobsen2001;Larsen2006;Rasmussen2006;Lauritzen2008)forthe30‐49yearsold.Theexactageinterval,e.g.inclusionofthe50‐65yearsold,shouldbeconsideredinconnectionwithactual
implementation.
ProposalAfewdetailsontheexperimentareinplace,inparttoelucidatethecontentsofthehealthtestandthe
healthconsultationwiththeGP,alongwithprovidingdocumentationfortheidea.
Thetargetgroupwas30‐49yearsold.Theyweredividedintothreegroupsbyrandomization(lottery):Acontrolgroupthatonlyansweredquestionnaires.Interventiongroup1hada
• broadhealthtestwithwrittenadvicefollowedbyanormal10–15minuteconsultationondemand.Interventiongroup2alsohadabroadhealthtestwithwrittenadvice,followedhoweverbya
planned45minutepatient‐centeredconsultation.
Participantsinthetwointerventiongroupswereofferedacomprehensivebiomedicalhealthtest.Healthtestswereperformedbyspeciallytrainedlaboratorytechniciansinoneoftheparticipatingclinics.2–3weeksafterthehealthtestallparticipantsreceivedwritteninformationfromtheirGPonthetestresults.
Adviceandpossibilitiesforlifestylechangesweregivenifthetestresultswereoutsideapre‐definednon‐risk‐range.Participantsininterventiongroup1wereadvisedtomakeanappointmentforanormalconsultationiftheresultswereconsideredtobeserious,i.e.elevatedbloodglucoseorhighriskof
cardiovasculardiseases.Allparticipantsininterventiongroup2wereofferedanappointmentfora45minutepatient‐centeredconsultation.Aonepagequestionnairewasincludedwiththewrittenadviceaskingparticipantstoconsidertheirhealthandwhattheycoulddotoimproveit.Theparticipantswere
askedtofillitinanddecidewhattotalkaboutwiththeirGP.AttheendofthehealthtalktheGPaskedeachindividualtosetamaximumofthreelifestyle‐relatedgoals.Ifneeded,furtherannualhealthconsultationslasting30minutescouldbeagreedupon.
Theprincipalfindingsofthe5‐yearfollow‐upofwere:
• Ahighparticipationratetohealthtestsandhealthconsultations.
• Arelevant,absolutereductionintheprevalenceofpeoplewithelevatedriskofCVDinthe
![Page 78: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
77
• interventiongroupscomparedtothecontrolgroup.
• Nopsychologicalreaction.
• Aninitialincreaseinhealthcarecontactsfollowedbyadecreasingtrend.Therewasnooverallincreaseinhealthcarecontacts.
Aneconomicallydominanteffect,i.e.healthtestsandconsultationsproducesignificantlybetterlifeexpectancywithoutextradirectandtotalcosts.
Estimatedlife‐yearsgainedperparticipantwere0.24and0.3yearsforinterventiongroup1and2
respectively‐comparedto0.16yearsforthecontrolgroup.Comparedtothecontrolgroupthedifferencewasstatisticallysignificant.
Anoverallpositiveperceptionbyparticipantsofhavinghealthtestsandhealthconsultations.
Fromahealtheconomicsperspectivetheresultswereinteresting:therewerenonet‐addedcostoverasixyearperiodofprovidingthetwointerventiongroupswithadditionalservices(healthtestandhealth
consultation).Inotherwords,thegainsinestimatedlifeexpectancycameatnonetcost.Theaveragenet‐gaininlifeexpectancyintwointerventiongroupswas0.13comparedtothecontrolgroup.IfweapplythevalueofanextralifeyearofDKK200,000thisanet‐benefitofDKK26,000(200,000*0.13)
Asaminimumhealthconsultationsandhealthtestsshouldbeintroducedforthe30‐49yearsold–the
targetgroupfortheoriginalexperiment.Inclusionofthe50‐65yearsoldshouldbeconsidered,butshouldbecarefullyevaluated.
ImprovedpsychiatryApsychiatricdisordercanbedefinedinavarietyofways.Thereforetheestimateofthenumberofpersonssufferingfromapsychiatricdisordervariesfrom10‐20%ofthepopulation(Sundhedsstyrelsen2009)andin
absolutenumbersfrom500,000to700,000(DanskPsykiatriskSelskab2004).ThiscoverseverythingfromschizophreniaoverADHDandautismtodepressionandanxiety.
AnincreasingnumberofDanesexperiencepsychiatricdisordersduringtheirlifetime.Psychiatriccarehasgenerallyreceivedlessattentionfrompoliticiansthansomaticcare,cf.abovewheregrowthinpsychiatry
relatedexpenditureslaggedbehindsomaticexpenditures.Theremaythereforeexistopportunitiesfor‘valueformoney’withinpsychiatryinthesensethathealthreturnsmaybehigh.Thequestioniswhereandhowtoinvest?Thereareseveralpossibilities.
Proposals1. Increasedfocusondepressionandanxiety.AccordingtotheDanishMentalHealthFund
(Psykiatrifonden2011)atanytimeabout200,000personssufferfromsomekindofdepressionof
whichabout120,000arerelativelyserious(gradedfrommediumtoserious).Duringtheirlifetimeabout15%oftheadultpopulationatsometimewillsufferfromdepression.Intermsofnumbersthisisonlysurpassedbyanxietywhereitisestimatedthat200,000+personsatanytimesuffer
fromanxiety,(Christensen2007).
![Page 79: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
78
Thesegroupsofcoursereceivetreatment.However,thereisnodoubtthattheirsituationcanbeimprovedconsiderably.
TherearenoDanishcost‐effectivenessanalyseseitheroftreatmentorpreventionofdepressionoranxiety.AtliteraturesurveybyWHO(WHO2004),anAustraliananalysis(Issakidis2004)anda
Swedishanalysisofdepressionorienteddrugsandanxiety(Wessling2008)togetherleavelittledoubtaboutthecost‐effectivenessoftreatment,i.e.thatthecostsperQALYiswithinnormallyacceptedbounds.Forinstance,theWHOsurveyshowedfrom$15,463to$36,434perQALY
gainedfortreatmentofferedintheprimaryhealthcaresector.Itshouldalsobenotedthatthesocietalcostsofdepressionandanxietyintermsofnotonlytreatmentbutalsolosttimefromworkordisabilitypensioningareconsiderable,
(Donohue2007).About50%ofallnewcasesofdisabilitypensionhaveapsychiatricdisorder(8,000
+)asthestatedreason,(Ankestyrelsen2011),butnopubliclyavailableinformationisavailableabouttheexactpsychiatricdiagnosis.Thereisnodoubtthatanumberofsuicidesarerelatedtodepression.However,theexactnumberisnotknownwithanydegreeofcertainty,although
professorLarsKessingclaimsthatabout20%ofthosewithrecurringdepressioneventuallycommitsuicide,(Kessing2011).Iftheywereandtherewashardevidenceofthepreventiveeffectonecouldestimateacost‐benefitratio.However,weabstainfromthishereandrelyonthecostsper
QALY.
2. Increasedfocusonearlyinterventionagainstnon‐psychoticdiseases(e.g.depressionandanxietydisorders):Evidencepointstopositivelong‐termeffectsofearlyintervention.Wesuggestinitiatingapilotprojectfocusingonearlyinterventionmethodsingeneralpracticeandmunicipalhealthcare
assistedbyhospitalspecialists.Theinterventionconsistsoftrainingandresourcesforincreasedopportunisticscreening,andearlyreferraltospecializedcare.
3. Easieraccesstotreatmentandfollowupviahomecareteams:Theinterventionistoscaleuptheeffortthatisalreadydoneinmanyregionstoinstitutionalizethecapacityforambulatorytreatment
andfollowupinhomecareteams,andparticularlytoexpandthehomecareteamstoalsocovernon‐psychoticconditionsandcriminalpsychiatry.Homecareteamshaveprovensuccessfulinhelpingpatientsincreasecompliancewithtreatmentregimesandtoreducetheriskofalcoholor
substanceabuse.
Inthelattertwocasesitisverydifficulttoassessthecost/benefitratio.Particularlythebenefitsideappearsproblematic,asbothshorttermandlongtermbenefitsshouldbeincluded.Itshouldthereforebeanexplicitpartoftheprojecttodevelopeconomicevaluationsthatcancreateaclearerpictureofcostsand
benefitsinaDanishsetting.
EndoflifeEnd‐of‐lifeissuesareemotionallycharged,butneverthelessneedtobeaddressedinalevel‐headedfashion.Abovethedevelopmentinthenumberofhospicebedsandpalliativeteamshasbeendescribed,
hereweturntothepossibilityofexpandingthisareafurther.However,thereareotherissuesaswell,namelydrugsforterminallyillpatients.
![Page 80: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
79
Thequestionisnotwhetherterminallyillpatientsattheend‐of‐lifeshouldbe‘denied’treatment,butratherhowandwherecareshouldbeprovidedandthecost‐effectivenessofthesealternatives.Thenumberofpersonswillbeincreasingandthepossibilitiesforcontinuingactivetreatmenttotheverylast
However,inordertoprovidepossibleanswerthedelineationof‘terminallyilland‘end‐of‐life’needtoberesolved.
Terminalillnessisusedtodescribeanillness/diseasethatcannotbecuredoradequatelytreatedandthatisreasonablyexpectedtoresultinthedeathofthepatientwithinarelativelyshortperiodoftime.Thisterm
isoftenusedforprogressivediseasessuchascancerandadvancedheartdisease.Inpopularuse,itindicatesadiseasewhichwillendthelifeofthesufferer.Often,apatientisconsideredtobeterminallyillwhenthelifeexpectancyisestimatedtobesixmonthsorless,undertheassumptionthatthediseasewill
runitsnormalcourse.Thecaveatisthatitisaprediction–andtherewillbeexceptionssothatthepersonsinquestionlivelonger.InDenmarkpatientsareusuallyadmittedtohospicewhentheyareexpectedtohaveonemonthremaininglifetime.
ArecentarticleinthehighlyprestigiousNewEnglandJournalofMedicinereportedonalotterybasedtrial
wherepatientswithnewlydiagnosedmetastaticnon‐small‐celllungcancerwererandomlyassignedtoreceiveeitherearlypalliativecareintegratedwithstandardoncologiccareorstandardoncologiccarealone.Theresultsareinteresting.Amongpatientswithmetastaticnon‐small‐celllungcancer,early
palliativecareledtosignificantimprovementsinbothqualityoflifeandmood.Ascomparedwithpatientsreceivingstandardcare,patientsreceivingearlypalliativecarehadlessaggressivecareattheendoflifebutlongersurvival(Temel2010).Noeconomicevaluationhasbeencarriedout,butthearticleraisesmany
interestingquestions.Forinstance,‘aggressivetreatmenttotheveryend’vs.palliativecaretowardstheend.Inanaccompanyingeditorialitwasnotedthat
“DespitetheincreasingavailabilityofpalliativecareservicesinU.S.hospitalsandthebodyofevidenceshowingthegreatdistresstopatientscausedbysymptomsoftheillness,theburdenson
familycaregivers,andtheoveruseofcostly,ineffectivetherapiesduringadvancedchronicillness,theuseofpalliativecareservicesbyphysiciansfortheirpatientsremainslow.Physicianstendtoperceivepalliativecareasthealternativetolife‐prolongingorcurativecare—whatwedowhen
thereisnothingmorethatwecando—ratherthanasasimultaneouslydeliveredadjuncttodisease‐focusedtreatment”,(Kelley2010)
Therearenotverymanyeconomicevaluationswherestandardcare,palliativecare,andhospicecareis
comparedheadtohead.Acoupleofstudieslookingatin‐homepalliativecarevs.standardcareshowthatprovisionofinterdisciplinaryhome‐basedpalliativecareatendoflifeforpatientswithCHF,COPD,andcancercanleadtosignificantcostsavings,(Brumley2007;Enguidanos2005;Morrison2008;Penrod2006;
Penrod2010;Stephens2008).
Denmarkhasrecently(January2011)experiencedadebateaboutsomethingakintoterminallyillpatients,namelytheso‐called‘secretcodes’inthepatientfiles.Secretcodesarecodesunknowntothepatient(and
strictlyagainstthelaw)thatindicatethatincaseofaworseningofthepatient’ssituationthereshouldbenotransfertointensivecareorresuscitationbasicallyindicatingthatadditional/intensivetreatmentatbest
![Page 81: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
80
wouldincreaselifemarginally.Apartfromthelegalityoftheprocedureusedthereisbothanethicalandeconomicissue.
TheEnglishpriority‐settinginstituteNICE(NationalInstituteofClinicalExcellence)in2009introducedsupplementaryappraisalrulesforlifeextendingdrugstoterminallyillpatients.Thiscaseillustratesseveral
things:ingeneralhowdifficultprioritysettingaroundend‐of‐lifeissuesisandspecificallythatitseemsthatNICEsoftenedtherulesestablishedbythecostsperQALYthinking.
Thebackgroundwasthatanumberofdrugsforrenalcarcinoma(cancer)intermsofcost/QALYwerenotevenclosetothe£30000.Inaddition,incomparing2ofthedrugsunderconsideration,anextra£31,185
onlyextendspatient’slifeby5months.TheseconclusionsweresubsequentlyendorsedbyNICEwhoimmediatelybecamethetargetofintenseorganizedlobbyingfromstakeholders.Thecriticismwasintensefrompressandpoliticians.
InviewofthecriticismNICEissuedasupplementaryguidelineconcerning‘end‐of‐life’relateddruguse.The
supplementaryadviceistobeappliedinthefollowingcircumstancesandwhenallthecriteriareferredtobelowaresatisfied:
• forpatientswithashortlifeexpectancy,normallylessthan24monthsand;
• sufficientevidencetoindicatethatthetreatmentoffersanextensiontolife,normallyofatleast
• anadditional3months,comparedtocurrentNHStreatment,and;
• islicensedorotherwiseindicated,forsmallpatientpopulations
Whentheconditionsdescribedabovearemet,theNICEAppraisalCommitteewillconsider:
• TheimpactofgivinggreaterweighttoQALYsachievedinthelaterstagesofterminaldiseases,usingtheassumptionthattheextendedsurvivalperiodisexperiencedatthefullqualityoflife
anticipatedforahealthyindividualofthesameage,and
• ThemagnitudeoftheadditionalweightthatwouldneedtobeassignedtotheQALYbenefitsinthispatientgroupforthecost‐effectivenessofthetechnologytofallwithinthecurrentthresholdrange
ProposalFormanyreasonsitisimportanttostartfocusingonendoflifeissuesdespitethefactthatitisahighlyemotionalsubject.Apointofdeparturemaybetheterminallyillandhowtocareandtreatthisgroup.Three,notnecessarilyexclusive,alternativesneedtobeconsidered:Normal(moreorlessaggressive)
hospitaltreatment,palliativecare(invariousforms)andhospicecare.Lookedatfromacost‐minimizingperspective–assumingequalqualityoflife/lifeexpectancy‐theremaybeanadvantagetopalliativecare/hospicecare,cf.studiesreferredtoabove.However,thisverymuchneedstobesubjectedtoa
rigorouscost‐effectivenessstudy.
Diagnosticcenters/fasttrackdiagnosingandevaluationDelayofdiagnosticprocedureshasatleasttwoconsequences.Foranumberofdiseasesthediseasemayprogressfurtherwhilewaitingforaspecificdiagnosis,e.g.cancer,andinmostcasesdelaysindiagnosis
![Page 82: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
81
leadtopatientanxietyandworry.Ithasalsobeenshownthatlongtermsicknessabsencecanbeshortenedbycoordinatedandfastdiagnosing(Kilsgaard2006).Heretheissueforinstanceiswaitingtimeformedicalcertificationby(practicing)specialists(KAD2002).Diagnosingofteninvolvesseveralparties:GP,practicing
specialist,andthehospitalshowingthatcoordinatedandconcertedactionsareneeded.Fasttrackevaluationanddiagnosismay(toacertainextent)alleviatethetwomentionedproblems.Fasttrackevaluationanddiagnosingisalreadyinplaceforcancerandcertainheartdiseases,butmaytoadvantage
beextendedfurther.A‘diagnosisguarantee’hasbeenproposedsimilartotheguaranteeabouttreatment,(Eriksen2009;Bundgaard2009).However,theinitialenthusiasmapparentlyhasdampenedandapartfromthetwomentioneddiseasesnotmuchhashappenedapartfromaparliamentaryproposalbytheSocial
democratsaboutcreatingdiagnosticcenters(Andersen2010).
Fasttrackdiagnosingandevaluationisnotanunconditionalblessing.Firstofall,unlessitisavailabletoallpatientgroups,apossiblesideeffectmaybethatpatientgroupsnotcoveredbyfasttrackproceduresareneglected/pushedaside.Onemightarguethatfasttrackdiagnosisonlyshouldbeavailableforpatients
with‘seriousdiseases’.However,thequestionishowtodefine‘seriousdisease’.Itisdefinitelymorethanlifethreateningdiseases,e.g.therecentlyapprovedFinanceActfor2011hasresourcesfordiagnosisof‘murky/unclearindicationsofcancer’(diagnosticpackage),forinstancealsopatientswithrheumatism
whereearlyinterventionhasbeenshowntobeimportant,howeverlogicallyrequiringearlydiagnosis(Deighton2010).Secondly,tomakesensefasttrackdiagnosingobviouslyrequiresthattreatmentisavailableafterdiagnosing.Byfasttrackingthediagnosticprocessthewholeideaistoinitiatetreatmentas
fastaspossible.Thus,ifthebottleneckinrealityisnotthediagnosticphasebuttreatmenttherewillbeaneedtolookatthisbottlenecktoharvestsomeoftheimportantbenefitsoffastdiagnosing.Fasttrackingalsodecreasespatientanxietyindependentofpossiblehealthbenefits:‘WhatamIsufferingfrom?’Many
patientscomplainthattheworstiswaitingtimewithuncertainty.Forpatientsfearingcanceritturnsoutthatmanydonothavecancer,but‘only’anotherlessseriousdisease.
ArecentDanishstudyoffasttrackdiagnosingofneckandheadcancershowedthatitwaspossibletoreducewaitingtimesinheadandneckcancer.Throughlogisticchanges,employmentofafull‐timecase
manager,strengtheningthemultidisciplinarytumorboardandgivinghigherpriorityforheadandneckcancerpatients,theoveralltimefromfirstsuspicionofcanceruntiltreatmentstartwasreducedfrom57calendardaysto29calendardays,(Toustrup2011).
Asthisexampleshowsanimportanttoolforfasttrackingislogisticsandefficientclinicalpathwayswhich
includecoordinatedbookingofandavailabilityofspecialistsanddiagnosticfacilitylikeimagingandlaboratoryfacilities.Assumingthatthequestionmoreisaquestionaboutefficientuseofexistingmanpowerandfacilitiesratherthanshortageofthesamethereshouldbenodoubtthatfasttracking
shouldbecost‐effective.However,ithasnotbeenpossibletoidentifycost‐effectiveorcost‐benefitanalysesofeitherfasttrackdiagnosingordedicateddiagnosticcenters.However,thereareseveralstudiesonfasttracktreatment(searchPubmedusing‘fast‐track’)showingfavorableeconomicresultsandeven
resourcesavings.Inviewoftheoftenlowcostsofestablishingfasttrackprocedures,e.g.improvedlogisticsand/oracriticallookatbottlenecks,aguesstimateofacost‐benefitratioisatleast1:1andmost
likely1:>1.
![Page 83: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
82
SummaryforsolutionsTable4showsasummaryofthesolutions,theissuestheyaddressandtheroughcost‐benefitratiosand/orcostsperQALY.
Table4:Summaryofthe10solutions
Solution ThesolutionaddressesthefollowingSWOT‐elementsand
objectives
Cost‐benefitratioand/orcostsperqualityadjustedlifeyears,
QALY
1. Increaseduseoftelemedicine:
Projectwithbrief‐casefortele‐monitoring/advisingthe
chronicallyill
Demographicchallenge(the
chronicallyill),thefiscalchallengeandpopulationexpectations
CBAratio1:1‐2
2. Cost‐effectivepreventive
activities/healthpromotion:Healthtestsandhealth
consultationsadmodumEbeltoft
Demographicchallenge(the
chronicallyill)andthelowlifeexpectancy
CBA‐ratio:1:26(anet‐benefitper
participantofDKK26,000)
3. Hospitalpalliativecare–hospiceatendoflife
Demographicchallengeandthepopulation’sexpectations
Cost‐minimizationanalysispointstopalliativecare/hospicecare.
4. Improveequityinhealth/useofhealthcare
Inequityissues SomewhatmeaninglesstodevelopaCBA‐ratio
5. NationalInstituteforPriority
Setting,NIPS,Methodsfor(explicit)prioritysetting
Fiscalchallengeandlegitimacyof
thepublichealthcaresystem
CBA‐ratio:atleast1:1andmost
likely1:>1
6. Expensivemedicine Institutionforprioritysetting CBA‐ratio:atleast1:1andmostlikely1:>1
7. Reducingthenumberofinfectionsandadverseevents’
Fiscalchallengeandqualityofcare CBA‐ratio:atleast1:17
8. Co‐payment Fiscalchallenge CBA‐ratio:1:13
9. Improvedpsychiatrictreatment/care
Weakness,psychiatryhasfallenbehind
FordepressionthecostsperQALYrangefrom$15‐35,000‐whichis
‘goodvalue’.Nocost‐benefitratiohasbeenestimated.
10. Diagnosticcenters/fasttrack
diagnosing
Accessandcoherentpatient
pathways
GuesstimateCBA‐ratio:1:1and
likely1:>1
![Page 84: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
83
Becarefulwiththeinterpretationofthecost‐benefitratios.Theycannotbeequatedto‘savings’inthehealthcaresystem.Consider,forexample,Solution2inthetableabove.Thecost‐benefitratiois1:26.Thismeansthatindividualwillingnesstopayforanadditionallifeyearleadstothisresult(inaccordancewith
thethinkingbehindcost‐benefitanalysis).However,viewedfromthehealthcaresystem’sperspective,thesolutionis‘costneutral’.Forpracticalpurposesitisthisresultthatisofinterest.However,ifonewantstoputamonetaryvalueontheaddedlifetime,thiscanbedonebyapplyinganestimateoftheindividual’s
willingnesstopayfor(afractionof)anextralifeyear.Itshouldbeobviousthatthiscannotbeinterpretedas‘savings’,butratheristhemonetaryvalueofadditionallifetime.Itshouldbenotedthattheindividualwillingnesstopaymaydifferfromthepoliticalwillingnesstopayforanaddedlifeyear–andresource
allocationinhealthcareessentiallyispolitical.
![Page 85: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
84
Endnotes 1. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Forbrugafsundhedsydelser2006(useofhealthcareservices2006).
Copenhagen:Sundhedsstyrelsen/NationalBoardofHealth,2007
2. Indenrigs‐ogsundhedsministeriet,(MinistryoftheInteriorandHealth).Sundhedsvæsenetinationaltperspektiv.Copenhagen:Indenrigs‐ogsundhedsministeriet/MinistryoftheInteriorandHealth,2010
3. Enhedenforbrugerunderundersøgelse.Denlandsdækkendeundersøgelseafpatientoplevelser(Countrywidesurveyofpatientexperince).Copenhagen:EnhedenforBrugerundersøgelse,2009
4. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Gennemsnitligerfaretventetidtiludvalgteoperationer,januar2010‐august2010(dage)/Averageexperiencedwaitingtimeforselectionoperations.Copenhagen:Sundhedsstyrelsen/NationalBoardofHealth,2011
5. StatensSerumInstitut,CentralEnhedforInfektionshygiejne.CEI‐NYTLandsprævalensundersøgelser/InformationLetter‐countrywideprevalenceofhospitalinfections.2010113.)
6. OECD.OECDEconomicSurveys:Denmark.Chapter5:Healthamajorfiscalchallenge.2008.
7. Sundhedsministeriet.Internationalbenchmarkingafdetdanskesygehusvæsen/InternationalbenchmarkingoftheDanishHospitalSystem.Copenhagen:MinistryofHealth,2010
8. ChristiansenT.ASWOTanalysisoftheorganizationandfinancingoftheDanishhealthcaresystem(wholeissuededicatedtotheDanishHealthCareSystem).HealthPolicy2002;59(2):99‐188.
9. Velfærdskommissionen.Befolkningsudvikling,velstandsdilemmaogmakroøkonomiskestrategier.København:2005.
10. Velfærdskommissionen.FremtidensVelfærd‐voresvalg:kapitel15:Brugerbetalingogforebyggelse.2005
11. HansenMF,PedersenLH.Sundhedsudgifterogfinanspolitiskholdbarhed.NationaløkonomiskTidsskrift2010;148(3):21‐42.
12. Bronnum‐HansenH,BaadsgaardM.IncreasingsocialinequalityinlifeexpectancyinDenmark.EurJPublicHealth2007;17(6):585‐586.
13. PedersenKM.Manglenpåarbejdskraftisundhedsvæsenetoghvordanmankantiltrækkeogfastholdekvalificeretarbejdskraft(Manpowershortageinthehealthcaresectorandhowtoattractandretinaqualifiedpersonnel).ResearchUnitofHealthEconomics,UniversityofSouthernDenmark,2011HealthEconomicPapers2008:2.)
14. Detøkonomiskeråd,CouncilofEconomicAdvisors.DanskØkonomi•Efterår2009.Sundhed(DanishEconomy‐autumn2009‐health).2009.
15. ArnbergS,BjørnerTB.Sundhedsudgifteroglevetid(healthexpenditureandlifetime).NationalØkonomiskTidsskrift(DanishJournalofEconomics)2010;148(1):43‐66.
![Page 86: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
85
16. Sundhedsministeriet.Sundhelelivet‐denationalemålogstrategierforfolkesundheden2002‐10.København:Sundhedsministeriet,2002
17. DahlgrenG,WhiteheadM.PoliciesandStrategiestoPromoteSocialEquityinHealth.Stockholm:InstituteforFutureStudies;1991.
18. Bronnum‐HansenH,BaadsgaardM.IncreaseinsocialinequalityinhealthexpectancyinDenmark.ScandJPublicHealth2008;36(1):44‐51.
19. ArendtJ.Forebyggeruddannelsesygdomme?Omsocialeforskelleisundhed.(Doesedcuationpreventillnesses.Aboutsocialdiffereneninhealth).In:LauridsenJT,PedersenM,editors.Sundhedsøkonomi‐frateoritilpraksis(healtheconomics‐fromtheorytopractice).Copenhagen:Jurist‐ogØkonomforbundetsForlag;2009:31‐46.
20. StatensInstitutforFolkesundhed.SUSYdatabase.Copenhagen:2011.
21. ZimmermannE,EkholmO,CurtisT.ArbejdsnotatomudviklingenisocialulighediselvvurderethelbredogsundhedsadfærdiDanmark(noteaboutsocialinequityinselfassessedhealthandhealthbehaviorinDenmark).Copenhagen:StaternsInstitutforFolkesundhed,2005
22. JuelK,Davidsen,M.RisikofaktorudviklingeniDanmarkfremskrevettil2020(Riskfactordevelopmentprognosisfor2020).Copenhagen:StatensInstitutforFolkesundhed,2009
23. FrandsenAG,Gyrd‐HansenD,PetersenS,SlothuusU.Danskernesønskertilsundhedsvæsenet.Odense:OdenseUniversitetsforlag;2000.
24. MandagMorgen.BrugernesSundhedsvæsen.Oplægtilpatientreform.Copenhagen:MandagMorgen;2007.
25. MandagMorgenStrategiskForum.Nårpatientenvågner.Etdebatoplægomdet21.århundredespatientkultur.Copenhagen:MandagMorgen;1999.
26. EnhedenforBrugerundersøgelser.DenLandsdækkendeUndersøgelseafPatientoplevelser(LUP).København:2009
27. HemmingsenMA.Hverfjerdeungfølersigdårligtbehandlethoslægen.DagensMedicin2010;20.December.
28. ColomboF,TapayN.PrivateHealthInsuranceinOECDCountries:TheBenefitsandCostsforIndividualsandHealthSystems.Towardshigh‐performinghealthsystems:policystudies.Paris:OECD;2004.
29. OECD.Proposalforataxonomyofhealthinsurance(OECDStudyonPrivateHealthInsurance).Paris:OECD;2004.
30. MartinsenDS,VrangbækK.TheEuropeanizationofHealthCareGovernance:ImplementingthemarketimperativesofEurope.PublicAdministration2007;86(1):169‐184.
31. MossialosE,PermanandG,BaetenR,HerveyT,(eds.).HealthSystemsGovernanceinEurope:TheroleofEuropeanUnionlawandpolicy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress;2010.
![Page 87: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
86
32. Brancheforeningenforprivathospitalerogklinikker.Denprivatesygehussektorital2010.Enfaktuelrapportomdenprivatesygehussektorudarbejdetpåbaggrundafenspørgeskemaundersøgelsesommeren2010/theprivatehospitalsectorinnumbers.Copenhagen:BPK,2010
33. Sundhedsstyrelsen,NationalBoardofHealth.Sengepladser/hospitalbeds.2011.10‐1‐2011. RefType:OnlineSource
34. LeGrandJ.TheOtherInvisibleHand:DeliveringPublicServicesthroughChoiceandCompetition.PrincetonUniversityPress.;2007.
35. ContiR,VeenstraDL,ArmstrongK,LeskoLJ,GrosseSD.PersonalizedMedicineandGenomics:ChallengesandOpportunitiesinAssessingEffectiveness,Cost‐Effectiveness,andFutureResearchPriorities.MedDecisMaking2010;30(3):328‐340.
36. MinisterietforVidenskabToU.FORSK2015.København:MinisterietforVidenskab,TeknologiogUdvikling,2008
37. DavisJ,MaP,SutariaS.Themicroeconomicsofpersonalizedmedicine.McKinseyQuarterly2010;(Febaruary).
38. NielsenFC,BorregaardN.Farmakogenetikogskræddersyetmedicinskbehandling.UgesriftforLæger2009;171(10):790‐794.
39. SkejbySygehus.Nyvisionærafdelingskalsikrepatienterneskræddersyetbehandling.http://wwwskejbydk/pressen/nyheder/visnyhed?visNyhed=39024,2009(AccessedJanuary15,2011).
40. AarhusUniversity.BacheloruddannelseniMolekylærmedicin.http://studieinfoaudk/bachelor_introduktion_dkcfm?fag=7170,2011(AccessedJanuary19,2011http://studieinfo.au.dk/bachelor_introduktion_dk.cfm?fag=7170).
41. GrønL,VangS,MertzMKH.Denkroniskepatient‐Nærbillederaflivetmedkronisksygdom.København:DSI,2009DSIrapport2009:4.)
42. Strandberg‐LarsenM,NielsenMB,VallgåardaS,KA,rangbækK.DenmarkHealthsystemreview.EuropeanObservatoryonHealthSystemsandPolicies;2007.
43. Sundhedsstyrelsen,NationalBoardofHealth.[website].SundhedsA‐Å/patientrettigheder[HealthA‐Z/patientrigths].(http://wwwsstdk/Sundhed3A/Patientrettighederaspx,2011(AccessedNovember4,2005(http://www.sst.dk/Sundhed3A/Patientrettigheder.aspx).
44. Retsinformation.LegalInformation[Retsinformation](2005)[website].Sundhedsloven,LOVnr546[LawofHealth,Lawno.546].Copenhagen,Civilstyrelsen[CivilAffairsAgency]accessed27Au.http://147294091/_GETDOCM_/ACCN/A20050054630‐REGL,2007http://147.29.40.91/_GETDOCM_/ACCN/A20050054630‐REGL).
45. VallgårdaS,KrasnikA.Sundhedstjenesteogsundhedspolitik‐enintroduktion,3.udgave/Healthservicesandhealthpolicy‐anintroduction,3rdedition.Copenhagen:MunksgaardsForlag;204.
![Page 88: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
87
46. Amtsrådsforeningen,AssociationofCounties.[website].Copenhagen,Amtsrådsforeningen.wwwarfdk,2005http://www.arf.dk).
47. BirkHO,HenriksenLO.Brugenafdetfriesygehusvalgindenfortreamter,1991‐1999.UgeskriftforLæger2003;165:3613‐3616.
48. SundhedsvæsenetsPatientklagenævn.Statistiskeoplysninger2009.2010
49. ChristiansenT.ASWOTanalysisoftheorganizationandfinancingoftheDanishhealthcaresystem.HealthPolicy2002;59:99‐106.
50. ChristiansenT.SummaryoftheSWOTpanel'sevaluationoftheorganisationandfinancingoftheDanishhealthcaresystem.HealthPolicy2002;59:173‐180.
51. ChristiansenTr.Internationalvurderingaforganisationogfinansieringafdetdanskesundhedsvæsen.Odense:SyddanskUniversitetsforlag;1999.
52. Índenrigs‐ogsundhedsministeriet,DanskeRegioner.Løbendeoffentliggørelseafprodutivitetisygehussektoren‐VIdelrapport‐Udviklingenfra2008til2009/Ongoingpublicationofproductivityresultsinthehospitalsector‐reportVI.Copenhagen:MinistryoftheInteriorandHealth,2010
53. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Pakkeforløb/fasttrackapproach.2011.15‐1‐2011. RefType:OnlineSource
54. Sundhedsministeriet.Landsdækkendeundersøgelseafpatientersoplevelserpåoffentligesygehusesogprivathospitalers‐ogklinikkersambulatorier.København:2008.
55. Hospiceforum.Hospice.http://wwwhospiceforumdk,2011(AccessedJanuary14,2011http://www.hospiceforum.dk).
56. GawandeA.LettingGo.Whatshouldmedicinedowhenitcan'tsaveyourlife.TheNewYorker2010;(August).
57. EconomistIntelligenceUnit.Thequalityofdeath.Rankingend‐of‐lifecareacrosstheworld.London:TheEconomistIntelligenceUnit,2010
58. PedersenKM.Sundhedspolitik‐beslutningsgrundlag,beslutningstagenogbeslutningerisundhedsvæsenet.Odense:SyddanskUniversitetsforlag;2005.
59. IKAS,TheDanishInstituteforQualityandAccreditationinHealthcare.Qualityassurance,accredication.2011.
RefType:InternetCommunication
60. MothG,StabelHH,KudskAZ,HansenL,RaskMT,MainzJ.Akkrediteringimedicinskteknologivurderingsperspektiv.UgeskrLaeger2004;166(19):1800‐1802.
61. RhodeP,MainzJ.Harakkrediteringeffekt?ErfaringerogoplevelserframocksurvyeogbesøghosJointCommissionInternationaliChicago.TidsskriftforDanskSundhedsvæsen2009;85(3):70‐73.
![Page 89: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
88
62. PedersenKM.Kankvalitetsudviklingbetalesig?SidepresentationatOLAU‐kursus22.september2008.2008.
RefType:Slide
63. MainzJ,KroghRB,BjørnshaveB,BartelsP.Nationwidecontinuousqualityimprovementusingclinicalindicators:theDanishNationalIndicatorProject.InternationalJournalforQualityinHealthCare2004;16(1‐supplement):45‐50.
64. NIP,NationalIndicatorProject.Qualitymonitoring.2011. RefType:InternetCommunication
65. NIP.Nationalauditrapport2009.Apopleksi.Århus:NIP,2010
66. NIP.Nationalauditrapport2009.Apopleksi(borgerrapport).2011. RefType:InternetCommunication
67. SvendsenML,EhlersLH,AndersenG,JohnsenSP.Qualityofcareandlengthofhospitalstayamongpatientswithstroke.MedCare2009;47(5):575‐582.
68. PalnumKD,PetersenP,SorensenHTetal.OlderpatientswithacutestrokeinDenmark:qualityofcareandshort‐termmortality.Anationwidefollow‐upstudy.AgeAgeing2008;37(1):90‐95.
69. VrangbækK.Theinterplaybetweencentralandsub‐centrallevels:thedevelopmentofasystemicstandardbasedprogrammeforgoverningmedicalperformanceinDenmark.HealthEconomics,PolicyandLaw2009;(Specialissue04):305‐327.
70. Sundhedsstyrelsen,NationalBoardofHealth.Evalueringafsundhedsaftalerne.Opfølgningogindikatorer.Copenhagen:Sundhedsstyrelsen/NationalBoardofHealth,2011
71. ChristensenJG,MouritzenPE,NørgaardAS,eds.DestorekommissionerVisemænd,smagsdommereellernyttigeidioter.Odense:UniversityofSouthernDenmarkPress;2009.
72. KL,DanskeRegioner,Finansministeriet,Sundhedsstyrelsen,MinisterietforSundhedogForebyggelse.Rapportvedrørendebedregrundlagforforebyggelsesindsatsenikommunerne.København:MinisterietforSundhedogForebyggelse,2008
73. HøjgaardB,SørensenJ,SøgaardJ.Evidensbaseretforebyggelseikommunerne‐dokumentationafeffektogomkostningseffektivitet.København:DSI,2006DSIrapport2006.07.)
74. Forebyggelseskommissionen.Vikanlevelængereogsunderer.Forebyggelseskommissionensanbefalingertilenstyrketforebyggendeindsats.2009
75. BechM,LauridsenJ.Exploringthespatialpatterninhospitaladmissions.HealthPolicy2008;87(1):50‐62.
76. BechM,LauridsenJ.Exploringspatialpatternsingeneralpracticeexpenditure.EuropeanJournalofHealthEconomics2009;10(3):243‐254.
77. BechM,LauridsenJ.Exploringthesmallareavariationandspatialpatternsinoutpatienttreatments.HealthServicesandOutcomesResearchMethodology2009;9(3):177‐196.
![Page 90: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
89
78. PedersenKM.Kommunalmedfinansieringafsundhedsvæsenet:Enidépåsandbund?Odense:UniversityPressofSouthernDenmark;2005.
79. KidholmK,EhlersL,KorsbekL,KjmrbyR,BechM.Assessmentofthequalityofmini‐HTA.InternationalJournalofTechnologyAssessmentinHealthCare2009;25(01):42‐48.
80. Ankjær‐JensenA,RoslingP,BildeL.VariableprospectivefinancingintheDanishhospitalsectorandthedevelopmentofaDanishcase‐mixsystem.HealthCareManagementScience2006;9(3):259‐268.
81. BildeL,HansenAR,SøgaardJ.Økonomiogstyringisygehusvæsenet.København:DanskSundhedsinstitut,2010
82. PedersenKM,BechM,HansenMB.Incitamentsstyringisygehusvæsenet:Virkningenaføgettakststyringogtilhørendeincitamenter.Odense:SyddanskUniversitetsforlag;2006.
83. Middellevetidsudvalget.Danskernesdødelighedi90erne(inDanish:ThemortalityofDanesinthe90ies).Copenhagen,MinistryofHealth,1998.
RefType:Generic
84. Middellevetidsudvalget.LevetideniDanmark.København:Sundhedsministeriet;1994.
85. JuelK.MiddellevetidogdødelighediDanmarksammenlignetmediSverige.Hvadbetyderrygningogalkohol?UgeskrLaeger2008;170(33):2423‐2427.
86. PedersenKM.Erdersammenhængmellemudviklingenimiddellevetidogsundheds‐ogmedicinudgifterne?RationelFarmkoterapi2008;(3):1‐4.
87. NolteE,McKeeM.Measuringthehealthofnations:analysisofmortalityamenabletohealthcare.BMJ2003;327(7424):1129.
88. NolteE,McKeeCM.Measuringthehealthofnations:updatinganearlieranalysis.HealthAff(Millwood)2008;27(1):58‐71.
89. BechM,ChristiansenT,DunhamKetal.Theinfluenceofeconomicincentivesandregulatoryfactorsontheadoptionoftreatmenttechnologies:acasestudyoftechnologiesusedtotreatheartattacks.HealthEcon2009;18(10):1114‐1132.
90. PackerC,SimpsonS,StevensA.Internationaldiffusionofnewhealthtechnologies:aten‐countryanalysisofsixhealthtechnologies.IntJTechnolAssessHealthCare2006;22(4):419‐428.
91. LIF.Cancerdrugs‐acces/Danskernefårikkedennyestekræftmedicin(accessedJanuary19,2010).2007.
RefType:InternetCommunication
92. WilkingN,JönssonB.Apan‐Europeancomparisonregardingpatientaccesstocancerdrugs.Stockholm:KarolinskeInstituttet,2005
93. JonssonB,KobeltG,SmolenJ.Theburdenofrheumatoidarthritisandaccesstotreatment:uptakeofnewtherapies.EurJHealthEcon2008;8Suppl2:S61‐S86.
![Page 91: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
90
94. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Eksperimentelbehandling.Årsrapport209.Copenhagen:NationalBoardofHealth,2010
95. Sundhedsministeriet.Kræftindsatsenfåretmassivtløft.2011.19‐1‐2011. RefType:OnlineSource
96. Sundhedsstyrelsen.NationalKræftplan.Statusogforslagtilinitiativerirelationtilkræftbehandling/NationalCancerPlan.Copenhagen:NationalBoardofHealth,2000
97. Sundhedsstyrelsen.KræftplanII.Sundhedsstyrelsensanbefalingertilforbedringerafindsatsenpåkræftområder.Copenhagen:NationalBoardofHealth,2005
98. Sundhedsstyrelsen.OpfølgningpåkræftplanII/Follow‐uponcancerplanII.Copenhagen:NationalBoardofHealth,2007
99. Sundhedsstyrelsen,Sundhedsministereit.AftaleomKræftplanIII.Copenhagen,2010
100. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Kræftbehandling/Treatmentofcancer.wwwsstdk/Planlaegning%20og%20kvalitet/Kraeftbehandlingaspx,2011(AccessedJanuary15,2011http://www.sst.dk/Planlaegning%20og%20kvalitet/Kraeftbehandling.aspx).
101. Sundhedsstyrelsen.DiagnostikogbehandlingafiskæmishjertesygdomiDanmark‐KAG,PCI,BY‐PASSogKLAPKIRURGI.Copenhagen:NationalBoardofHealth,2005
102. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Nyanalyseogstatus:Danskhjertebehandlingpåinternationaltniveau.2005.19‐1‐2011.
RefType:OnlineSource
103. Sundhedssstyrelsen.Egenomsorg.Etsærligtperspektivpåforebyggelseogsundhedsfremme.København:Sundhedsstyrelsen;2006.
104. Sundhedsstyrelsen.KroniskSygdom.Patient,sundhedsvæsenogsamfund.2005.
105. Sundhedsstyrelsen.KroniskSygdom.Patient,sundhedsvæsenogsamfund.Forudsætningerfordetgodeforløb.
3269.København:Sundhedsstyrelsen;2005.
106. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Patientuddannelsesprogrammet.Læratlevemedkronisksygdom.København:Sundhedsstyrelsen;2005.
107. Sundhedsstyrelsen,NationalBoardofHealth.ChronicDiseaseManagementANationalStrategyDiseaseManagementProgrammesandSelf‐ManagementSupport.Copenhagen:Sundhedsstyrelsen/NationalBoardofHealth,2007
108. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Forløbsprogrammerforkronisksygdom.DelI:generiskmodelDelII:Diabetes.Copenhagen:Sundhedsstyrelsen/NationalBoardofHealth,2008
109. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Patientuddannelse‐enteknologivurdering.Copenhagen:Sundhedsstyrelsen/NationalBoardofHealth,2009
![Page 92: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
91
110. Sundhedsstyrelsen,NationalBoardofHealth.ChronicConditions.Patient,HealtcareandCommunity.Summaryandrecommendations.20A.D.
111. Sundhedsstyrelsen,NationalBoardofHealth.Sundhedsaftaler/HealthAgreements.wwwsstdk/Planlaegning%20og%20kvalitet/Sundhedsaftaleraspx,2011(AccessedJanuary14,2011http://www.sst.dk/Planlaegning%20og%20kvalitet/Sundhedsaftaler.aspx).
112. ImprovingChronicIllnessCareI.Thechroniccaremodel.2011.14‐1‐2011. RefType:OnlineSource
113. Sundhedsstyrelsen.EgenomsorgvedkronisksygdomTema‐avisfranordiskkonferenceomegenomsorg.Copenhagen:Sundhedsstyrelsen/NationalBoardofHealth,2011
114. APO.FolkesygdommeialmenpraksisForekomstogforebyggelsesperspektivervurderetiforbindelsemedenauditregistrering.Odense:APO,2005
115. Indenrigsministeriet.Samordningisundhedsvæsenet.Betænkningnr.1044.København:Indenrigsministriet,1985
116. JohnsenAT,JensenCR,PedersenC,GrønvoldM.Kræftpatienensverden.‐Enundersøgelseaf,hvilkeproblemerdanskekræftpatienteroplever.Litteraturgennemangoginterviews.Copenhagen:KræftensBekæmpelse,2006
117. EnhedenforBrugerundersøgelser.LandsdækkendeundersøgelseafkræftpatientersoplevelserEnspørgeskemaundersøgelseblandt19.455kræftpatienter.Copenhagen:EnhedenforBrugerundersøgelser,2010
118. DanskePatienter.Rehabilitering.2011.19‐1‐2011. RefType:OnlineSource
119. Herløv‐PedersenK.Rehabiliteringogleddegigt.Indsatsermedevidens,fagligtgrundlagogvigtigefaggrupper(slide‐præsentation).2010.
RefType:Slide
120. RehabiliteringscenterDallund.Litteraturomrehabilitering.2011.19‐11‐2011. RefType:OnlineSource
121. Rehabiliteringsforum.RehabiliteringiDanmark2010‐beskrevetgennempraksishistorier.RehabiliteringsforumDanmark,2010
122. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Hjerterehabilitering‐enmedicinskteknologivurdering.EvidensfralitteraturenogDANREHAB‐forsøget‐sammenfatning.Copenhagen:NationalBoardofHealth,2006
123. Sundhedsstyrelsen.Genoptræning.wwwsstdk/Behandlingsforloeb%20og%20rettigheder/Genoptraening%20og%20fysioterapi/Genoptraeningaspx,2011(AccessedJanuary19,2011http://www.sst.dk/Behandlingsforloeb%20og%20rettigheder/Genoptraening%20og%20fysioterapi/Genoptraening.aspx).
![Page 93: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
92
124. KairyD,LehouxP,VincentC,VisintinM.Asystematicreviewofclinicaloutcomes,clinicalprocess,healthcareutilizationandcostsassociatedwithtelerehabilitation.DisabilityandRehabilitation2009;31(6):427‐447.
125. KristiansenIS,PoulsenPB.Milliardbesparelservedtelemedisin:troellerfaktum?Enoversiktoverøkonomiskeanalyseravtelemedisinskeapplikasjoner.TidsskriftforNorskeLægeforening2000;120:2305‐2311.
126. PolisenaJ,CoyleD,CoyleK,McGillS.Hometelehealthforchronicdiseasemanagement:Asystematicreviewandananalysisofeconomicevaluations.InternationalJournalofTechnologyAssessmentinHealthCare2009;25(3):339‐349.
127. JohanssonT,WildC.Telemedicineinacutestrokemanagement:Systematicreview.InternationalJournalofTechnologyAssessmentinHealthCare2010;26(2):149‐155.
128. KeaneMG.Areviewoftheroleoftelemedicineintheaccidentandemergencydepartment.JTelemedTelecare2009;15(3):132‐134.
129. VerhoevenF,vanGemert‐PijnenL,DijkstraK,NijlandNN,SeydelE,SteehouderM.Thecontributionofteleconsultationandvideoconferencingtodiabetescare:Asystematicliteraturereview.JournalofMedicalInternetResearch2007;9(5).
130. AfdelingenforKommunesamarbejdeRS.Telemedicinskunderstøttelseafbehandlingenafsårpatienter–enmini‐MTVvedrørendetelemedicinogsårbehandlingiSønderjylland.Vejle:RegionSyddanmark,2009
131. Forsknings‐ogMTV‐afdelingen.SygehusbehandlingafKOLpatienteriegethjem.Odense:OdenseUniversitetshospital,2009
132. AmmentorpJ,RasmussenAM,KofoedP‐E.Telefontolkningforbedrervilkåreneforpatienter.Sygeplejersken2006;(2):52‐55.
133. AzarminaP,WallaceP.Remoteinterpretationinmedicalencounters:asystematicreview.JTelemedTelecare2005;11(3):140‐145.
134. ChanYF,AlagappanK,RellaJ,BentleyS,Soto‐GreeneM,MartinM.Interpreterservicesinemergencymedicine.JEmergMed2008.
135. Medcom.Nationaludbredelseaftolkningviavideokonferenceudstyr.Odense:Medcom,2009
136. EkelandAG,BowesA,FlottorpS.Effectivenessoftelemedicine:Asystematicreviewofreviews.InternationalJournalofMedicalInformatics2010;79(11):736‐771.
137. BergmoTS.Economicevaluationintelemedicine‐stillroomforimprovement.JTelemedTelecare2010;16(5):229‐231.
138. BryanS,SofaerS,SiegelbergT,GoldM.Hasthetimecomeforcost‐effectivenessanalysisinUShealthcare?HealthEconPolicyLaw2009;4(Pt4):425‐443.
139. EddamaO,CoastJ.Useofeconomicevaluationinlocalhealthcaredecision‐makinginEngland:aqualitativeinvestigation.HealthPolicy2009;89(3):261‐270.
![Page 94: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
93
140. CarrollS.IsThereAnythingNicerthanNICE?AQuestiontheConservativeShadowHealthTeamIsRighttoAsk.2009.
141. DrummondM.CanNICEBeNicer?InaWorldofBudgetConstraintsThereAreNoEasySolutions.2009.
142. DrummondM,SorensonC.CanNICEBeNicer?InaWorldofBudgetConstraintsThereAreNoEasySolutions.ValueinHealth2009;12(5):634‐636.
143. SculpherM,DrummondM,O'BrienB.Effectiveness,efficiency,andNICE‐ANICEstartbutevidencecostsmoney.BritishMedicalJournal2001;322(7292):943‐944.
144. DanmarksStatistik,StatisticsDenmark.FForbrugerundersøgelsener.DanmarksStatistikBank.http://wwwstatistikbankendk/statbank5a/defaultasp?w=1280,2011(AccessedJanuary20,2011http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280).
145. NOMESCO,NordiskMedicinalstatistiskKomité.HealthStatisticsintheNordicCountrieswithdata
from2008.Copenhagen:2010
146. Velfærdskommissionen,theWelfareCommission.FremtidensVelfærd‐voresvalg:kapitel15:Brugerbetalingogforebyggelse/Welfareofthefuture‐ourchoice.Chapter15:Co‐paymentandprevention.2005
![Page 95: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
94
ReferencesReferencesreferto(roundbrackets)intext.
ABTFondenandAnvendtborgernærteknologi.(2011.Teleløsningeroginformations‐og
kommuniationsteknologi.
Alectia2010,TelemedicinHvadertelemedicin?Hvadbetyderdetforhospitalerne?Antalletafsengepladser?Anlægsinvesteringer?Driftsudgifter?(enslide‐serie),AlectiaA/S,København.
AndersenSH2010.B1Forslagtilfolketingsbeslutningomoprettelseafdiagnosecentre(2010‐2011.Folketinget‐www.ft.dk/samling/20101/beslutningsforslag/b1/beh1/forhandling.htm?startItem=‐1
Ankestyrelsen2011.Førtidspensioner:Årsstatistik2009København,Årsstatistik.
Barbash,G.I.&Glied,S.A.2010.Newtechnologyandhealthcarecosts‐‐thecaseofrobot‐assistedsurgery.
N.Engl.JMed,363,(8)701‐704availablefrom:PM:20818872
Brumley,R.,Enguidanos,S.,Jamison,P.,Seitz,R.,Morgenstern,N.,Saito,S.,McIlwane,J.,Hillary,K.,&Gonzalez,J.2007.Increasedsatisfactionwithcareandlowercosts:resultsofarandomizedtrialofin‐homepalliativecare.JAm.Geriatr.Soc.,55,(7)993‐1000availablefrom:PM:17608870
BundgaardB2009.Diagnosegarantipåvej.UgeskriftforLæger,171,(43)3044
ChristensenM,AlbækJ,&Ankjær‐JensenA2007.UndersøgelseafangstsygdommeKøbenhavn,DSI.
ColemanK,AustinBT,BrachC,&WagnerEH2009.EvidenceontheChronicCareModelinthenew
millennium.HealthAff,28,(1)75‐85
DanskPsykiatriskSelskab2004.Hvidbog‐Psykiatrienskerneopgaverogudfordringer20042010København,DanskPsykiatriskSelskab.
DanskSelskabforTelemedicin.(2011.DanskSelskabforTelemedicin.
Deighton,C.&Scott,D.L.2010.Treatinginflammatoryarthritisearly.BMJ,341,c7384availablefrom:PM:21196485
DueTD,WaldorffSB,AarestrupAK,LaursenB,&CurtisT2008.SundhedscentreiDanmark–organisering
ogsamarbejdsrelationerCopenhagen,NationalInstituteofPublicHealth.
Enguidanos,S.M.,Cherin,D.,&Brumley,R.2005.Home‐basedpalliativecarestudy:siteofdeath,andcostsofmedicalcareforpatientswithcongestiveheartfailure,chronicobstructivepulmonarydisease,andcancer.JSoc.WorkEnd.LifePalliat.Care,1,(3)37‐56availablefrom:PM:17387068
EriksenTE.S,VogKvilhavediagnose‐garanti.http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2009/09/26/122518.htm
.2009.8‐2‐2011.RefType:ElectronicCitation
![Page 96: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
95
EvansR,BarerM,&MarmorT1994.WhyAreSomePeopleHealthyandOthersNot?:TheDeterminantsofHealthofPopulationsAldineTransaction.
GawandeA2009.Thechec‐listmanifesto:HowtogetthingsrightPicador.
Gyrd‐HansenD&KjærT2011.DisentanglingWTPperQALYdata:differentanalyticalapproaches,differentanswers(earlyviewavailableonwebsiteofHealthEconomics).HealthEconomics
HansenEB,JessenA,&JørgenseTS2010.Effekterafensundhedsfremmendeindsatsitrekommuner.En
sammenligningafindsatseniAssens,GreveogHjørringKommunerCopenhagen,AKF.
HansenEB&JørgensenTS2008.Organiseringafforebyggelseogsundhedsfremme.–ErfaringerfrakommunernesførsteårCopenhaagen,AKF.
Hansen,M.&StephsenP2010,Danmarksfremtidigebefolkning.Befolkningsfremskrivning2010(thefuturepopulationofDenmark.Populationprognosis2010).,DREAMsecretariat,Copenhagen.
HaynesAB&etal2009.ASurgicalSafetyChecklisttoReduceMorbidityandMortalityinaGlobal
Population.NewEnglandJournalofMedicine,360,491‐498
InternationalSocietyforTelemedicineande‐health.Telemedicine.*.2011.20‐1‐2011.RefType:ElectronicCitation
IRFandInstituteofrationalpharmacotherapy.(2011.TelefonbogIRF/telephonelistIRF.
IssakidisC,SandersonK,CorryJ,&etal2004.Modellingthepopulationcost‐effectivenessofcurrentandevidence‐basedoptimaltreatmentforanxietydisorders.PsycholMed,34,(1)19‐35
JacobsenET2001.SundhedsprojektEbeltoft".Praktiserendelægersvurderingaforganisatoriskeaspekter
vedimplementeringafforebyggendehelbredsundersøgelserog‐samtalerialmenpraksisKøbenhavn,DSI.
KAD&SID2002.Hvorforvente?Initiativerforhurtigerogbedreindsatsforsygemeldte.
Kelley,A.S.&Meier,D.E.2010.Palliativecare‐‐ashiftingparadigm.N.Engl.JMed,363,(8)781‐782availablefrom:PM:20818881
KessingLars.Selvmord.http://www.depnet.dk/universe1/suicide/.2011.2‐8‐2011.RefType:ElectronicCitation
KilsgaardJ,ShersonD,BültmanU,OlsenJ,PedersenJ,&LundT2006.KoordineretIndsatsfor
Arbejdsfastholdelse(KIA)afsygemeldtemedlængerevarendesmertegenerfrabevægeapparatet.København,Arbejdsmiljøinstituttet.
KommunernesLandsforening2008.Godtigang‐enkvantitativundersøgelseafdenkommunaleforebyggelsesindsatsi2008Copenhagen,KommunernesLandsforening.
LarsenEL,ThomsenJL,LauritzenT,&EngbergM2006.Forebyggendehelbredsundersøgelserog
helbredssamtalerialmenpraksis‐enanalyseafpatientperspektivetKøbenhavn,Sundhedsstyrelsen.
![Page 97: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
96
Lauritzen,T.,Jensen,M.S.,Thomsen,J.L.,Christensen,B.,&Engberg,M.2008.Healthtestsandhealthconsultationsreducedcardiovascularriskwithoutpsychologicalstrain,increasedhealthcareutilizationorincreasedcosts.Anoverviewoftheresultsfroma5‐yearrandomizedtrialinprimarycare.TheEbeltoft
HealthPromotionProject(EHPP).Scand.JPublicHealth,36,(6)650‐661availablefrom:PM:18775821
Lorig,K.&etal1999.EvidenceSuggestingThataChronicDiseaseSelf‐ManagementProgramCanImproveHealthStatusWhileReducingHospitalization:ARandomizedTrial3270.MedicalCare,37,(1)5‐14
Lotan,Y.,Cadeddu,J.A.,&Gettman,M.T.2004.Theneweconomicsofradicalprostatectomy:costcomparisonofopen,laparoscopicandrobotassistedtechniques.JUrol.,172,(4Pt1)1431‐1435available
from:PM:15371862
MarmotM2004.TheStatusSyndrome.HowsocialstandingaffectsourhealthandlongevityNewYork,TimeBooks.
Medcom2010.UdredningomTelemedicin.UdarbejdetafMedComforABT‐fondenKøbenhavn,ABTFonden.Medcom.Telemedicin.*.2011.RefType:ElectronicCitation
Morrison,R.S.,Penrod,J.D.,Cassel,J.B.,Caust‐Ellenbogen,M.,Litke,A.,Spragens,L.,&Meier,D.E.2008.
CostsavingsassociatedwithUShospitalpalliativecareconsultationprograms.Arch.InternMed,168,(16)1783‐1790availablefrom:PM:18779466
NielsenJS2008.Valuinggainsinlifeexpectancy‐Theoreticalandempiricalissues.Ph.d‐afhandling,SyddanskUniversitetOdense.
OECD2004.Proposalforataxonomyofhealthinsurance(OECDStudyonPrivateHealthInsurance)Paris,
OECD.
Patel,H.R.,Linares,A.,&Joseph,J.V.2009.Roboticandlaparoscopicsurgery:costandtraining.Surg.Oncol.,18,(3)242‐246availablefrom:PM:19560913
PedersenKM2009,Erderbrugforfemmilliardermereisundhedsvæsenet?Hvadkandebrugestil?,DepartmentofPublicHealth,healtheconomics,UniversityofSouthernDenmark,HealthEconomicsPapers
2009:2.
Peikes,D.2006.Diseasemanagement:promising,butnotyetproven.Expert.Rev.Pharmacoecon.Outcomes.Res.,6,(3)241‐244availablefrom:PM:20528517
Peikes,D.,Chen,A.,Schore,J.,&Brown,R.2009.Effectsofcarecoordinationonhospitalization,qualityofcare,andhealthcareexpendituresamongMedicarebeneficiaries:15randomizedtrials.JAMA,301,(6)
603‐618availablefrom:PM:19211468
Penrod,J.D.,Deb,P.,Dellenbaugh,C.,Burgess,J.F.,Jr.,Zhu,C.W.,Christiansen,C.L.,Luhrs,C.A.,Cortez,T.,Livote,E.,Allen,V.,&Morrison,R.S.2010.Hospital‐basedpalliativecareconsultation:effectsonhospitalcost.JPalliat.Med,13,(8)973‐979availablefrom:PM:20642361
![Page 98: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
97
Penrod,J.D.,Deb,P.,Luhrs,C.,Dellenbaugh,C.,Zhu,C.W.,Hochman,T.,Maciejewski,M.L.,Granieri,E.,&Morrison,R.S.2006.Costandutilizationoutcomesofpatientsreceivinghospital‐basedpalliativecareconsultation.JPalliat.Med,9,(4)855‐860availablefrom:PM:16910799
Psykiatrifonden.Depression.http://www.psykiatrifonden.dk/Forside/Psykiske+sygdomme/Depression.
2011.8‐2‐2011.RefType:ElectronicCitation
RasmussenSR,KilsmarkJ,HvenegaardA,&etal2006.Forebyggendehelbredsundersøgelseroghelbredssamtalerialmenpraksis.Ensundhedsøkonomiskanalyseaf"SundhedsprojektEbeltoft"København,DSIogSundhedsstyrelsen.
RusselLB2009.Preventingchronicdisease:animportantinvestment,butdon'tcountoncostsavings.
HealthAff,28,(1)42‐45
SikkerPatient.Fremtidenssundhedsvæsenharikkerådtilfejlogspild.Patientsikkerhedkanbliveendelafløsningenpåsundhedsvæsenetsøkonomiskeudfordring.http://www.sikkerpatient.dk/nyheder/laeringsseminar2.aspx.2011.22‐1‐2011.
RefType:ElectronicCitation
StatensSerumInstitut&CentralEnhedforInfektionshygiejne.2010,CEI‐NYT‐Landsprævalensundersøgelser/InformationLetter‐countrywideprevalenceofhospitalinfections.
Stephens,S.2008.Hospital‐basedpalliativecare:cost‐effectivecareforpatientswithadvanceddisease.JNurs.Adm,38,(3)143‐145availablefrom:PM:18327063
Sundhedsministeriet2008.Rapportvedrørendebedregrundlagforforebyggelsesindsatsenikommunerne
Copenhagen,MinistryofHealth.
Sundhedsstyrelsen&NationalBoardofHealth2009.NationalStrategiforPsykiatri/NationalStrategyforPsychiatryCopenhagen,NationalBoardofHealth.
TeknologiskInstitut2008.Analyseafsamfundsøkonomiskeeffektervedbåndbredskrævendetelemedicin.
Temel,J.S.,Greer,J.A.,Muzikansky,A.,Gallagher,E.R.,Admane,S.,Jackson,V.A.,Dahlin,C.M.,Blinderman,C.D.,Jacobsen,J.,Pirl,W.F.,Billings,J.A.,&Lynch,T.J.2010.Earlypalliativecareforpatientswith
metastaticnon‐small‐celllungcancer.N.Engl.JMed,363,(8)733‐742availablefrom:PM:20818875
Toustrup,K.,Lambertsen,K.,Birke‐Sorensen,H.,Ulhoi,B.,Sorensen,L.,&Grau,C.2011.Reductioninwaitingtimefordiagnosisandtreatmentofheadandneckcancer‐afasttrackstudy.ActaOncol.availablefrom:PM:21261506
Velfærdskommissionen&theWelfareCommission2005,FremtidensVelfærd‐voresvalg:kapitel15:
Brugerbetalingogforebyggelse/Welfareofthefuture‐ourchoice.Chapter15:Co‐paymentandprevention.
WesslingA&RamsbergJ2008.GenomgångenavläkemedelmotdepressionStockholm,TandvårdochLäkemedleförmårnsverket.
![Page 99: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
98
WHO2009.Safesurgeysaveslives.http://www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/en/Accessed2February2011.
WHORegionalOfficeforEurope'sHealthEvidenceNetwork2004.Whatistheevidenceoneffectivenessofcapacitybuildingofprimaryhealthcareprofessionalsinthedetection,managementandoutcomeof
depression?Copenhagen,WHO.
![Page 100: The Danish Health Care System: The Consensus Report](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052606/5868e3c51a28abab4a8b8b06/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
99