Decentralization, re-centralization and future European health policy

Decentralization as a strategic cornerstone

A major shift appears to be underway in Europe in the relationship between national, regional, and local control over health sector decision-making. Since World War II, a central thrust of health policy has been to decentralize key dimensions of decision-making authority to increasingly lower levels of government, as well as (in Social Health Insurance systems and recently in some tax-based systems) to private sector organizations.¹ This strategy, to adapt Kondratiev's business-cycle framework,² has been one of two overlapping ‘long waves’ that helped frame structural decisions in most Western European health systems. The second wave—market-influenced-entrepreneurialism—has run simultaneously with decentralization since the late 1980s. However, while this second, market-oriented wave has generated considerable controversy in some health policy circles, the concept of decentralization was readily accepted in many national policy contexts. As a result, over the second half of the 20th century, expanded decentralization of authority to regional, municipal and non-governmental control has become part of the ‘received wisdom’ about what good health policy should include.

In the tax-funded health systems in Nordic countries, for example, most administrative and managerial responsibility as well as substantial political (policy) and fiscal decision-making control has been decentralized inside the public sector: from national to regional level (somatic hospitals in Norway in 1970; mental hospitals in Sweden in 1967), from regional to municipal level (elderly residential care in Sweden in 1992), and from national to municipal level (effective decision-making control over central hospitals in Finland in 1993). In the tax-funded health systems in Southern Europe, most administrative and managerial as well as many political (but not key fiscal) responsibilities were devolved from national to regional governments in Spain (to the 17 autonomous communities from 1981 to 2003), and in Italy (to 22 regional governments starting in the late 1980s).

In social health insurance funded countries in continental Europe such as Germany and the Netherlands, most administrative and managerial as well as many fiscal (but not key political) decisions have long been delegated to private not-for-profit bodies (sickness funds and hospitals), under a form of ‘enforced self-regulation’ grounded in explicit national statutory responsibilities.³ In many cases, this particular form of decentralization has been in place since those systems’ inception.

In the more state-based social insurance systems that have emerged since 1990 in many Central European countries, various forms of decentralization have been utilized. Reacting strongly to the prior highly centralized Semashko model, countries decentralized ownership of hospitals from national to regional (Hungary) and local (Estonia, Poland) governments. The Czech Republic even termed its decentralization of hospital ownership to municipal governments as ‘privatization’. In similar fashion, centralized funding structures of the Communist period were decentralized into regional social health insurance funds in countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

The strategic role of decentralization was further strengthened by changes in overall governmental structures in Europe. During the 1980s and 1990s, national governments increasingly ceded areas of sovereign power upward to European Union bodies, while at the same time that they were losing responsibilities downward to increasingly assertive regions—a process captured by the popular 1990s discussion about a ‘Europe of Regions’. This overall reduction in the role of national governments served to reinforce the health sector experience that the era of centralized power at the national level in Europe was fast receding.

The rise of re-centralization

In the first years of the 21st century, however, this conventional wisdom has started to come undone. Far from continuing to recede, the role of the state in the health sector has begun to strengthen measurably. Instead of reinforcing the continued decentralization of authority away from national governments, state institutions have reversed course and are seizing responsibility for substantive political and fiscal decision-making in European health care systems. It now appears that in the near-term future only administrative and managerial authority—e.g. day-to-day operating decisions—will remain decentralized to lower level and/or non-governmental organizations.

These counter-indications can be observed in many of the health systems noted earlier. In the tax-funded system in Norway, the national government took over political and administrative/managerial responsibility for all hospitals in the entire country in January 2002, removing control from the 19 regional governments (counties) that had previously owned and operated the public hospitals and transferring the administrative role to five newly created regional bodies appointed from Oslo. The national government also set out new rules for how these regions were to manage their hospitals—as ‘public enterprises’. Fiscal responsibility for health care remained, as before, a national responsibility.

In Denmark, the national government initiated a major re-structuring of the health sector in January 2006. In the new configuration, the number of regional governments was reduced from 14 to 5, and their powers were greatly reduced. Fiscal and most political responsibilities were centralized back to the national government, with certain prevention and chronic care issues being re-allocated to the municipalities (also consolidated, from 271 to 98). At the end of these changes, the new regions retained little more than administrative and managerial responsibility for hospitals.

A similar pattern of regional consolidation and a strengthening of the state role appears to be underway in Sweden and Finland. In Sweden, a royal commission is expected to recommend that the number of regional level governments (which have responsibilities for hospital and also primary care) be reduced from the current 21 to between 6 and 8. Similarly, in Finland, the national government is expected to propose that the number of central hospital districts, currently 22, be reduced to 18, and also that the number of municipalities (responsible for primary, nursing home and home care services) be reduced from 450 to about 250.

In the United Kingdom, similar recentralization can be seen in the transformation of England's Regional Health Authorities from line to support functions, as well as in current plans to reduce the number of Primary Care Trusts from 300 to 150. In Ireland, key operating responsibilities were recently shifted from regional health care boards to a health executive at central level and the regional boards were abolished.

A parallel, if less aggressive, thrust toward more state control over both political and fiscal decisions can also be observed in several social health insurance funded countries. In the Netherlands, the national government in 2006 changed the health system's funding structure from a sliding 50% employee/50% employee paid model to a 100% individually paid fixed premium, supplemented by social assistance funds (e.g. taxes) for low income citizens. The Dutch government also, since the late 1990s, has been ratcheting up the percentage of total expenditures for which the private not-for-profit sickness funds are at risk, forcing funds to manage their money more efficiently.

In Germany, the federal government in 2009 is scheduled to take on responsibility for pooling all social health insurance contributions and then allocating them to the sickness funds on a prospective, risk adjusted, capitation basis. While this funding model has been in place in the neighboring Netherlands for many years, in Germany it would represent a major move toward centralizing fiscal responsibilities away from the private not-for-profit sickness funds and into the hands of a national government body.

In Central Europe, Poland, in 2003, pulled operating control over its social health insurance system away from 17 regional funds and back into the Ministry of Health.

Reasons for re-centralizing

From the perspective of national health policymakers, this process of re-centralization appears to reflect a complex set of concerns. Structurally, there is substantial worry about the aging of their populations (e.g. more elderly), the rapid growth of expensive new clinical technologies, and the economic constraints on health sector funding generated by European regionalization as well as the globalization of markets. Administratively, there is evidence in countries like Finland and Norway (also concerns in Denmark) that local control over health sector decision-making has led to increased disparities in services provided and in outcomes to vulnerable populations—in short, that decentralization has heightened equity problems.

Economically, there are worries that local finance bases are insufficient to fund expensive future care needs, and that local administrative arrangements are inefficient and duplicative. Politically—an important factor in Northern European tax-funded countries—there is a sense among national politicians that they are being blamed when the health system fails to meet the expectations of the citizenry, and that national policymakers need to have the necessary organizational levers to correct these problems. Technically, the introduction of electronic medical records and other computerized reporting systems has reduced the transaction costs of information and made it feasible to more closely monitor health system performance from a central level.

While many of these dilemmas with decentralization were predicted earlier in theoretical assessments,⁴ one can see strong elements of their concrete manifestation in the current movement toward re-centralization. Moreover, since these causal factors are long-term in nature, their recent importance lends strength to the argument that re-centralization may indeed represent a long-term structural shift in national health strategies.

Re-centralization—the next “long wave”?

Several important questions arise from these examples of re-centralizaton in both tax funded as well as social health insurance funded health systems. One is whether the observed changes represent more than just the normal ebb-and-flow of policy development in European health systems, and instead signal a fundamental shift in the overall pattern of these decisions. A related question is whether political and fiscal authority will continue to migrate from regional and municipal to national government, leaving mostly administrative and managerial forms of control at the lower levels. The underlying issue here concerns the mix of national and local authority that typically exists within most European health care systems, and whether the main bias in structuring that mix might be changing from one favouring decentralizing to local governments into one that favors centralizing authority back to national governments. Posed more provocatively, one might ask whether a new “long wave” of re-centralization has now begun, pointing toward a health policy future of stronger national governments and weaker regional, local, and delegated private (SHI) institutions.

There are—as Kuhn's theory about the complexities of paradigm shift would predict⁵—several confounding factors in arriving at satisfactory answers to these questions. One issue concerns whether a new ‘long wave’ of re-centralization can co-exist comfortably—as decentralization did—with the parallel long-wave pattern of market-influenced entrepreneurial measures, particularly in tax-funded health systems. Will re-centralization and entrepreneurialism reinforce each other, as happened previously with decentralized local units?

Second, there are several exceptions to this broad pattern of increasing re-centralization across European health systems. One clear exception is in countries with serious ethnic conflicts, for example Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia in the Balkans, and also in Belgium. Recent history suggests that decentralization may be essential in these highly charged political environments, in that various forms of local control are typically linked to the survival of the state itself.

Another conceptually messy question concerns the pattern of continued regional decentralization of health sector decisions in Southern European countries like Italy and Spain. Regional governments in these two countries have fiercely defended their recently gained authority in the health sector, and have forced their less convinced central governments (Spain in 2003, for example) to tread carefully in designing new national programs to monitor performance or set standards for quality and outcomes.

Of course, Spain and Italy both have histories of earlier regional sovereignty. Moreover, both are geographically larger and have bigger populations than Nordic countries—although they are roughly equal in size to the United Kingdom and also Poland. There is, further, within both Italian and Spanish regions a tendency toward greater internal centralization inside the regions themselves. Despite these caveats, however, it appears that Italy and Spain are pursuing greater decentralization at the same point in time that Northern European countries are shifting away from decentralization in their health systems.

Initial conclusions

This brief review of recent health sector patterns raises a series of questions that do not allow for easy answers. A further complicating factor is the apparent lack of fit between continued local control over services to the elderly (home care, social assistance, also nursing home care) and increasing central control over fiscal and policy decisions in the overall health sector, which implies that re-centralization may soon confront key structural limitations.

The current distribution of health sector evidence does suggest, however, that many European health systems will continue to see a tightening of state controls, especially over fiscal and quality-related matters. In this clash between national and local governments, it would appear that, on balance, democratic control at the national level will strengthen, taking increased authority over political and fiscal decisions, while democratic control at the regional and municipal level will weaken, and be increasingly focused only on administrative and managerial decisions. Moreover, given the rapid melting of public–private boundaries within many European health systems, this greater state role will likely be combined with growing public as well as private sector entrepreneurialism, despite the appearance that greater reliance on market-oriented decisions contradicts tighter state control over health system behaviour. While the particular balance between increased state controls and increased entrepreneurial initiatives will vary from country to country, this new blend of two ‘long waves’, with increasing levels of state authority over key health sector decisions, will likely define the future policymaking framework for many European health systems in the near-term future.

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this argument were presented at the Third International Health Policy Conference in Jerusalem (December 2006) and the Annual Meeting of the European Public Health Association in Helsinki (October 2007). This version has benefited from comments made by a number of colleagues at both meetings, and especially from Josep Figueras, David Chinitz and Charles Phelps. An earlier version of this article is included in the conference proceedings of the Jerusalem meeting.

References