Opinions of Swedish citizens, health‐care politicians, administrators and doctors on rationing and health‐care financing
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19508153 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Per Rosén (Nordic School of Public Health, corresponding author), Ingvar Karlberg (Nordic School of Public Health) |
| Year | 2002 |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 148-155 |
| Publication date | 2002-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health Expectations (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00169.x |
| PMID | 12031055 |
| OpenAlex | W2160289946 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 14 |
| References cited | 10 |
Objective To compare the views of citizens and health‐care decision‐makers on health‐care financing, the limits of public health‐care, and resource allocation. Design A postal survey based on a randomized sample of adults taken by the national registration and stratified samples of health‐care politicians, administrators, and doctors in five Swedish counties. Participants A total number of 1194 citizens (response rate 60%) and 427 decision‐makers (response rate 69%). Results The general public have high expectations of public health‐care, expectations that do not fit with the decision‐makers' views on what should be offered. To overcome the discrepancy between demand and resources, physicians prefer increased patient fees and complementary private insurance schemes to a higher degree than do the other respondents. Physicians take a more favourable view of letting politicians on a national level exert a greater influence on resource allocation within public health‐care. A majority of physicians want politicians to assume a greater responsibility for the exclusion of certain therapies or diagnoses. Most politicians, on the other hand, prefer physicians to make more rigorous decisions as to which medical indications should entitle a person to public health‐care. Conclusions The gap between public expectations and health‐care resources makes it more important to be clear about who should be accountable for resource‐allocation decisions in public health‐care. Significant differences between physicians' and politicians' opinions on financing and responsibility for prioritization make the question of accountability even more important
Accountability · Business · Economic growth · Economics · Health care · Health care rationing · Political science · Public health · Public relations · Rationing · Resource allocation · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Healthcare Policy and Management · Healthcare Systems and Reforms · Medicine · Nursing
Leveraging research for health insurance coverage of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction
The sociology of rationing
Polarity in healthcare priority setting
Priority setting in health care
Citizens' preferences on healthcare expenditure allocation
Patients’ priorities for ambulatory hospital care centres. A survey and discrete choice experiment among elderly and chronically ill patients of a Dutch hospital
Public acceptability of public health policy to improve population health
Prioritization and resource allocation in health care. The views of older people receiving continuous public care and service
Fair reckoning
Evidence‐based disparities
To accept, or not to accept, that is the question
The relationship between socio‐economic factors and responsiveness gaps in primary, preventative and health promotion services
Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes
Consequences of a decentralized healthcare governance model
| Citations per year | 0.74 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2007 - 2025 (19) |
| Highly cited | No |