title: The effects of the Norwegian Coordination Reform on the use of rehabilitation services: panel data analyses of service use, 2010 to 2013.
abstract: In 2012 the Norwegian Coordination Reform was implemented. The main motivation was to encourage municipalities to expand local, primary health care services. From 2012 to 2014, under the Municipal Co-Financing regime, municipalities were obliged to cover 20 % of the costs of health services provided at the specialist (hospital) level. Importantly, use of rehabilitation services in private institutions was not part of the cost-sharing mechanism of Municipal Co-Financing. Rehabilitation services may be seen as quite similar in nature whether they be provided by municipalities, hospitals or private institutions. Thus, with rehabilitation patients readily "transferrable" between levels, the question is whether the reform brought with it a sought after shift towards more municipal rehabilitation and less specialist rehabilitation.
  
  
  
  Data from the Norwegian Patient Register and from Statistics Norway/KOSTRA were utilized to gauge annual expenditures and inputs in specialist, municipal and private institution rehabilitation services respectively. Fixed effects and first difference regression analyses for the period 2010-2013 were carried out to account for certain time-invariant traits of municipalities and/or hospital regions, and results were adjusted for contemporaneous trends in local needs.
  
  
  
  Expenditures in specialist rehabilitation services declined sharply (typically by 8-10 %) from 2011 (pre-reform) to 2012 (post-reform), while expenditures in private rehabilitation services rose markedly in the same period (typically by 42-44 %). The results do not suggest any general expansion of municipal rehabilitation services.
  
  
  
  The results of the analyses suggest that municipalities shift away from the use of specialist rehabilitation services and towards the use of rehabilitation services in private institutions since the latter becomes relatively cheaper (free-of charge) than both municipal and specialist services in post-reform periods (as specialist services come at a cost to municipalities post-reform). While the main goal of the reform has not materialized the results nevertheless suggest that incentives (of cost-shifting) do play a significant role in rehabilitation service use.
authors: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Centre for Welfare and Labour Research, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 4, St. Olavs plass, Oslo, 0130, Norway. lars.monkerud@nibr.hioa.no.
authors: Lars C
authors: LC
authors: Monkerud
authors: Departement of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1089, Blindern, Oslo, 0317, Norway.
authors: Trond
authors: T
authors: Tjerbo
mesh_terms: D017047:Cost Sharing; D018166:Health Care Reform; D005102:Health Expenditures / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D009664:Norway; D012047:Rehabilitation Centers / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*
keywords: Health care reform; Integrated care; Municipal co-financing; Primary care reform; Rehabilitation services; Specialist and primary health care coordination