Facts: Kew billion and care guarantee
Since the beginning of the 1990s, the state has used care guarantees to shorten waiting times in care. The care guarantee was written into the Health Care Act 2010.
Last year, just under 60 percent of patients in Sweden received planned care or treatment within the 90 days of the care guarantee.
In 2009, the government concluded an agreement with Sweden’s Municipalities and Regions (SKR) on the Købillion.
Since then, this performance-based money has been allocated for different periods from the state to regions that meet the care guarantee.
The queue billion led in the short term to shorter waiting times, but had a diminishing effect, according to the National Audit Office. The money was paid out on the basis of insufficient statistical data, and it is not yet known whether performance compensation has an effect, according to the authority.
Care guarantee that promises visits and treatment within a certain number of days. Kew billion that spurs the regions to live up to the care guarantee, and standardized care procedures that will make cancer care more efficient. The state’s tool to shorten waiting times in care has been reviewed by the National Audit Office and hardly gets a good rating.
“We see some effect on waiting times, but also a risk that the management will lead to errors,” says Filippa Hagersten, auditor at the National Audit Office and project manager for the review, to TT.
Want to extend the care guarantee
A problem with the care guarantee, which promises assessment in primary care three days after the patient contacts the health center, is that it interferes with medical prioritization, according to the report.
“Three days is such a short time that you risk not having time to prioritize those who need care already after one day,” says Filippa Hagersten.
The National Audit Office’s advice to the government is therefore to extend the three-day guarantee in primary care to seven days.
– We also want the guarantee to be broadened to also include patients with previously known health problems, says Filippa Hagersten.
Too long a wait
In order to reduce differences in waiting times within the country’s cancer care, another policy instrument was introduced eight years ago – standardized care processes. This tool receives some praise from the National Audit Office for having shortened the waiting times for prostate cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer and rectal cancer. However, even this instrument of control can lead astray, according to the review.
— For more slowly growing forms of cancer, there may be no evidence that the patient’s survival is affected by waiting another week. There may be a limit to how much these patients can be prioritized if the other care is to be completed. Patients who, for example, have benign prostate enlargement have had to wait too long, which can lead to complications, says Filippa Hagersten.
Filippa Hagersten, auditor at the National Audit Office, who advises the state to extend the care guarantee so that patients who do need care quickly are not deprioritised.
The criteria for being investigated for cancer are also too broad, she claims.
TT: The right to be examined for cancer is vital, isn’t it?
-Yes. Cancer is a serious disease that must be prioritized. But there is a risk of worrying people unnecessarily.