Formal priority setting in health care: the Swedish experience
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: From the late 1980s and onwards health care in Sweden has come under increasing financial pressure, forcing policy makers to consider restrictions. The purpose of this paper is to review experiences and to establish lessons of formal priority setting in four Swedish regional health authorities during the period 2003-2012. Design/methodology/approach: This paper draws on a variety of sources, and evidence is organised according to three broad aspects: design and implementation of models and processes, application of evidence and decision analysis tools and decision making and implementation of decisions. Findings: The processes accounted for here have resulted in useful experiences concerning technical arrangements as well as political and public strategies. All four sites used a particular model for priority setting that combined top-down- and bottom-up-driven elements. Although the process was authorised from the top it was clearly bottom-up driven and the template followed a professional rationale. New meeting grounds were introduced between politicians and clinical leaders. Overall a limited group of stakeholders were involved. By defusing political conflicts the likelihood that clinical leaders would regard this undertaking as important increased. Originality/value: One tendency today is to unburden regional authorities of the hard decisions by introducing arrangements at national level. This study suggests that regional health authorities, in spite of being politically governed organisations, have the potential to execute a formal priority-setting process. Still, to make priority-setting processes more robust to internal as well as external threat remains a challenge.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous studies have described that support, especially from clinical leaders and the general public, is essential for the success of the disinvestment process.
“support, especially from clinical leaders, but from the general public as well, was found to be essential for the success of the disinvestment process [6, 33, 34].”
From What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rotteveel, A. H., Lambooij, M. S., van de Rijt, J. J. A., van Exel, J., Moons, K. G. M., & de Wit, G. A. (2021) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06298-3 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Garpenby, P., & Bäckman, K.
- Affiliations
- Linköping University (SE)
- ORCID
- Garpenby, Peter
- Venue
- Journal of Health Organization and Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2016-09-19
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 891-907
- ISSN
- 1477-7266 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2526014848
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- urn.kb.se
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Health Organization and Management (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Practices
- Keywords
- healthcare resource allocation, regional health authorities, Swedish healthcare system, evidence-based decision making, clinical leadership, stakeholder engagement
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Health Priorities, Policy Making, Sweden, Organizational Case Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review