Search

Health systems internationally face demands to deliver care that is better coordinated and integrated. The health system financing and delivery model may go some, but not all the way in explaining health system fragmentation. In this paper, we consider the road to care integration in two countries with Beveridge style health systems, England and Denmark, that are both ranked as highly Integrated systems in Toth's health integration index. We use the SELFIE framework to compare the policies and reforms that have affected care integration over the past 30 years in the two countries. The countries both started their reform path by reforming to introduce choice and competition, but did so in different ways that set them on different pathways. Nevertheless, after two decades, the countries ended the period with largely similar structures that emphasised the creation of a cross-sectoral governance structure. In the relatively centralised England, by introducing decentralised Integrated Care Systems, and in the relatively decentralised Denmark with a centralising element in the form of new Health Clusters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares the introduction of policies to promote or strengthen patient choice in four Northern European countries - Denmark, England, the Netherlands and Sweden. The paper examines whether there has been convergence in choice policies across Northern Europe. Following Christopher Pollitt's suggestion, the paper distinguishes between rhetorical (discursive) convergence, decision (design) convergence and implementation (operational) convergence (Pollitt, 2002). This leads to the following research question for the article: Is the introduction of policies to strengthen choice in the four countries characterised by discursive, decision and operational convergence? The paper concludes that there seems to be convergence among these four countries in the overall policy rhetoric about the objectives associated with patient choice, embracing both concepts of empowerment (the intrinsic value) and market competition (the instrumental value). It appears that the institutional context and policy concerns such as waiting times have been important in affecting the timing of the introduction of choice policies and implementation, but less so in the design of choice policies. An analysis of the impact of choice policies is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is concluded that further research should investigate how the institutional context and timing of implementation affect differences in how the choice policy works out in practice., (© Cambridge University Press 2012)