Norwegian Priority Setting in Practice – an Analysis of Waiting Time Patterns Across Medical Disciplines

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Finance, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

2 Department of Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway


Different strategies for addressing the challenge of prioritizing elective patients efficiently and fairly have been introduced in Norway. In the time period studied, there were three possible outcomes for elective patients that had been through the process of priority setting: (i) high priority with assigned individual maximum waiting time; (ii) low priority without a maximum waiting time; and (iii) refusal (not in need for specialized services). We study variation in priority status and waiting time of the first two groups across different medical disciplines.
Data was extracted from the Norwegian Patient Register (NPR) and contains information on elective referrals to 41 hospitals in the Western Norway Regional Health Authority in 2010. The hospital practice across different specialties was measured by patient priority status and waiting times. The distributions of assigned maximum waiting times and the actual ones were analyzed using standard Kernel density estimation. The perspective of the planning process was studied by measuring the time interval between the actual start of healthcare and the maximum waiting time.
Considerable variation was found across medical specialties concerning proportion of priority patients and their maximum waiting times. The degree of differentiation in terms of maximum waiting times also varied by medical discipline. We found that the actual waiting time was very close to the assigned maximum waiting time. Furthermore, there was no clear correspondence between the actual waiting time for patients and their priority
Variations across medical disciplines are often interpreted as differences in clinical judgment and capacity. Alternatively they primarily reflect differences in patient characteristics, patient case-mix, as well as capacity. One hypothesis for further research is that the introduction of maximum waiting times may have contributed to push the actual waiting time towards the maximum. The finding that the actual waiting time was very close to the maximum waiting time supports this. The lack of clear correspondence between the actual waiting time for patients and their priority status may imply that urgency, described in the referral letter, and severity of illness, according to guidelines, are two separate entities.


Main Subjects

  1. Ringard Å, Sagan A, Saunes I, Lindahl A. Norway. Health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2013;15(8):1-162.
  2. Siciliani L, Borowitz M, Moran V. Waiting Time Policies in the Health Sector: What Works? OECD Publishing; 2013.
  3. NICE Pathways. Accessed October 30, 2015.
  4. Norges Offentlige Utredninger. Guidelines for Priority Setting in the Norwegian Health Care System [Norwegian]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 1987:23.
  5. Norges Offentlige Utredninger. Priority Setting Revisited [Norwegian]. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste, Statens trykking; 1997:18.
  6. Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. Lov om pasientrettigheter. LOV_1999-07-02-63; 1999.
  7. Sosial- og helsedirektoratet. Prosjektdirektiv for Samarbeidsprosjektet Riktigere prioritering i spesialisthelsetjenesten;2006.
  8. Helsedirektoratet. Ventetid og pasientrettigheter, IS-8/2009. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet; 2008.
  9. Helsedirektoratet. Ventetider og pasientrettigheter. Published 2010.
  10. Norheim O. Praktisering av prioriteringsforskriften i Helse Vest. Sluttrapport. Bergen: Helse Vest; 2005.
  11. Sosial og helsedepartementet. St.meld. nr. 26 (1999-2000) Om verdiar for den norske helsetenesta. Oslo; 1999.
  12. Helsedirektoratet. Prioriteringsveiledere. Published 2009.
  13. Cameron A, Trivedi P. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
  14. Nikolova A, Sinko A, Sutton M. Do maximum waiting times guarantees change clinical priorities for elective treatment? Evidence from Scotland. J Health Econ. 2015;41:72-88.
  15. Worthington DJ. Queueing models for hospital waiting lists. J Oper Res Soc. 1987;35(5):413-422.
  16. Norredam M, Album D. Prestige and its significance for medical specialities and diseases. Scand J Public Health. 2007;35(6):655-661.
  17. Album D. Sykdommers og medisinske spesialiteters prestisje. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1991;111(17):2127-2133.
  18. Propper C, Sutton M, Whitnall C, Windmeijer F. Did “Targets and Terror” Reduce Waiting Times in England for Hospital Care? Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. 2008;8(2).
  19. Januleviciute J, Askildsen J, Holmås T. The impact of different prioritisation policies on waiting times: case studies of Norway and Scotland. Soc Sci Med. 2013;97:1-6. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.010
  20. Askildsen J, Holmås T, Kaarboe O. Monitoring prioritisation in a public health care sector. The case of Norway. Health Econ. 2011;20(8):958-970. doi:10.1002/hec.1659
  21. Dimakou S, David P, Devlin N, Appleby J. Identifying the impact of government targets on waiting times in the NHS. Health Care Manag Sci. 2009;12(1):1-10.
  22. Noseworthy T, McGurran J, Hadorn D. Noseworthy TW, McGurran JJ, Hadorn, DC. Waiting for scheduled services in Canada: development of priority-setting scoring systems. J Eval Clinic Pract. 2003;9(1):23-31.
  23. Holman P, Ruud T, Grepperud S. Horizontal equity and mental health care: a study of priority ratings by clinicians and teams at outpatient clinics. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:162-166. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-162
  24. Riksrevisjonen. Riksrevisjonens kontroll med forvaltningen av statlige selskaper for 2011. Del III – Resultater av utvidede kontroller. Sak 1: De regionale helseforetakenes registrering, resultatrapportering og måloppnåelse for ventetider. Dokument 3:2, 2012-2013. Published 2012.