Introducing out-of-pocket payment for General Practice in Denmark: Feasibility and support

- The political parties' ideological backgrounds appear to have limited influence on the parties' official attitudes.
- Feasibility (coalitions between parties) and support may play a bigger part in the decision-making context.
- Governmental positions, public- and health-professional support are important factors in the decision-making context.
- Recommendations for policy makers are not to underestimate the significance of health professionals when making policies.

AimsThe financing of General Practice (GP) is a much-debated topic. In spite of out-of-pocket (OOP) payment for other primary health care provided by self-employed professionals, there is no OOP payment for the use of GP in Denmark. This article aims to explore the arguments, the actors and the decision-making context.Methods and materialsAn analysis of the healthcare-policy debate in Parliament and the media from 1990 until September 2012. The materials are parliamentary hearings/discussions and newspaper articles. Kingdon's model on Policy Windows and the Advocacy Coalition framework by Sabatier and Jenkins are used to investigate explanations.ResultsThe arguments from the proponents are: that OOP payment for GP will reduce pressure on the primary sector; that the current allocation of OOP payment in the sector is historically conditioned; and that resistance towards OOP payment is based on emotions. The main argument from the opponents is that OOP payment will increase social inequality in health.ConclusionsThere is little connection between the attitudes and ideological backgrounds of the political parties. Despite factors such as perceived expert/scientific evidence for OOP payment, changes of government, financial crisis and a market-based reform wave, no government has introduced OOP payment for GP. This article suggests that governmental positions, public- and especially health-professional support are important factors in the decision-making context.