Opinions of Swedish citizens, health-care politicians, administrators and doctors on rationing and health-care financing.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the views of citizens and health-care decision-makers on health-care financing, the limits of public health-care, and resource allocation.
DESIGN: A postal survey based on a randomized sample of adults taken by the national registration and stratified samples of health-care politicians, administrators, and doctors in five Swedish counties. PARTICIPANTS: A total number of 1194 citizens (response rate 60%) and 427 decision-makers (response rate 69%).
RESULTS: The general public have high expectations of public health-care, expectations that do not fit with the decision-makers' views on what should be offered. To overcome the discrepancy between demand and resources, physicians prefer increased patient fees and complementary private insurance schemes to a higher degree than do the other respondents. Physicians take a more favourable view of letting politicians on a national level exert a greater influence on resource allocation within public health-care. A majority of physicians want politicians to assume a greater responsibility for the exclusion of certain therapies or diagnoses. Most politicians, on the other hand, prefer physicians to make more rigorous decisions as to which medical indications should entitle a person to public health-care.
CONCLUSIONS: The gap between public expectations and health-care resources makes it more important to be clear about who should be accountable for resource-allocation decisions in public health-care. Significant differences between physicians' and politicians' opinions on financing and responsibility for prioritization make the question of accountability even more important.