Evaluation of primary health care reform in Estonia

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00280-0Get rights and content

Abstract

Estonia began to reform its health care system by reorganizing primary health care (PHC). Ten years ago, the health care system was inefficient, supply was biased towards institutional care, and PHC was almost non-existent in the western understanding: it was provided by different specialists in policlinics, and the financial basis of the system was in crisis. The reform had the following aims: to develop PHC by introducing family medicine, to guarantee the whole population access to family doctors’ services, and to secure stable funding for these services. In 1998, a new phase in the reform was introduced through the creation of a new funding system for primary care services. The aim of this paper is to present a practically applicable set of indicators to evaluate PHC reform in terms of health economics criteria and then to apply these indicators in evaluation of the Estonian PHC reform.

Introduction

Following their restoration of independence, most Central and East European countries began to look for ways to improve the performance and quality of their health care systems (Grielen, Boerma, & Groenewegen, 2000). Common aims in the health care reforms were to strengthen primary care and introduce the family physician, and at the same time, reduce the use of specialist care in order to contain health care costs (Saltman & Figueras, 1997).

The first step in the Estonian healthcare reform was the reorganization of funding of medical care. Instead of funding directly from the state budget, a solidarity-based compulsory health insurance system was introduced in 1992, with contributions paid by employers as a flat 13% surcharge on salaries paid to employees (WHO, 2000a).

The main tasks of the primary health care (PHC) reform in Estonia included introduction of family medicine as a specialty into Estonian health care practice, and changing the remuneration system of primary care doctors. The key elements of the first task included introduction of family medicine courses into the medical school curriculum and retraining of qualified primary care doctors (district internists and district pediatricians) for family medical practice. The changes in PHC started in 1991 with the establishment of a postgraduate training program for family medicine, which in 1993 was designated as a medical specialty (Lember, 1996). Major changes in the remuneration system were designed in 1997 and implemented in 1998.

The Ministry of Social Affairs of Estonia formulated the aims of PHC reform as follows:

  • (1)

    An effectively operating PHC system should be developed in Estonia by 2003. The reformed health care system should be accessible in residential areas, ensure continuity of medical care, and be implemented by well-educated and skilled family doctors (FDs) who are committed to and accountable for their practice.

  • (2)

    Management and functioning of the PHC system should follow common principles all across Estonia.

  • (3)

    The reorganized PHC should pivot around an FD who meets most of the primary care needs of population, is a co-coordinator of care and should operate as a gatekeeper referring her or his patients to higher levels of care when necessary.

The relevant steps of PHC reform included: (1) creating a list system through which the population could register with a primary care doctor, (2) introducing a partial gate keeper and partial fund-holder system, (3) introducing a payment system for doctors based mainly on capitation payments, combined with other minor payments, and (4) rendering to doctors the status of the independent contractor (The Ministry of Social Affairs of Estonia, 1998). It was assumed that the new combined funding system of primary care doctors would be more efficient than the previous fee-for-service system, as has been demonstrated by the implementation of PHC reforms in other countries (Calnan, Groenewegen, & Hutten, 1992; Boerma & Fleming, 1998).

To support and administer PHC reform, policymakers and researchers need to use several indicators for evaluation, and evaluations of reforms in countries that have been changing their health care systems are still rare. In 1997, WHO issued a paper that discussed methods for evaluating the effects of health care reforms (McPake & Kutzin, 1997), but these methods have not been systematically applied in any of the Eastern European countries, making it hard to evaluate and compare the success of health care reforms on the international level (Jee & Or, 1998).

The purpose of this paper is to present a set of indicators that have practical application in evaluating PHC reform in terms of health economics criteria, and to apply these indicators in evaluating the Estonian PHC. It enables a systematic comparison between the planned objectives of reform and the outcomes realized.

Section snippets

Methods

The development of the system of indicators for evaluating Estonia's PHC was started from the five general criteria set out in Appendix A, following McPake and Kutzin (1997), and Knowles, Leighton, and Stinson (1997).

Three economic criteria—allocative efficiency, technical efficiency and financial sustainability—were used by the authors of the current report to develop the system of indicators. This selection was shaped by the limited availability of data that is routinely collected by the

Results

The set of indicators and the empirical values assigned to them for PHC reform in Estonia 1997–1999 is presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3.

Discussion

The settings of health care reform differ for each country, depending on its health care characteristics and the goals of the reform. Health care reforms can involve either whole systems, certain parts of health care systems or specific interventions. As it has been observed that every particular indicator shows a change with reform under different conditions, it is more reasonable to use a set of indicators that consider the different parts of health care system (Radical Statistics Health

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr. Hans Künka for his help in editing the manuscript. This study is supported by Estonian Science Foundation Grant #3900.

References (19)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (32)

  • Strengthening weak primary care systems: Steps towards stronger primary care in selected Western and Eastern European countries

    2013, Health Policy
    Citation Excerpt :

    The reforms in the CCEE were not only positive. The privatization of primary care in the CCEE that now are part of the EU resulted in a scale of general practices which is much smaller than the previous polyclinics [43]. This might have consequences for further development of primary care in these countries.

  • Primary care in Baltic countries: A comparison of progress and present systems

    2013, Health Policy
    Citation Excerpt :

    The progress of PC reform in Baltic countries has been examined in several studies. There are a number of studies about the Estonian PC system, explaining access to PC services [13], patient satisfaction and acceptability of the PC system [11,14] as well as economic aspects of PC reform [15,16]. The studies about PC reforms in Latvia and Lithuania primarily focus on patient satisfaction and acceptability of the PC system [17–20].

  • Assessment of the Turkish health care system reforms: A stakeholder analysis

    2012, Health Policy
    Citation Excerpt :

    Their main reforms included creation of a list of FPs that citizens could choose from and the introduction of a “gatekeeper” function for FPs, among other reforms. Koppel et al. [31] evaluate the impact of these reforms according to allocative efficiency, technical efficiency, and financial sustainability. They find the reforms to be moderately successful in achieving efficiency in all three areas, and reported that progress is being made at a steady pace.

  • Health reform in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union

    2009, The Lancet
    Citation Excerpt :

    Some researchers have suggested that polyclinics could have been adapted, with measures to enhance the skills and autonomy of health workers, placing a greater emphasis on health promotion, disease prevention, and improved integration of primary and secondary care.79 What some see as the premature dissolution of polyclinics in several countries has resulted in many solo practices, running counter to the trend in much of western Europe to establish group practices and strengthen links between primary and specialist care, long-term care, and public health.23,28,34,76 Reform of primary care has given rise to some curious transfers of ideas.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text