Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article explores the implications of legal regulation for medical discretion and decision-making in Norway and Denmark. METHODS: The article is based on a cross-national cross-sectional survey exploring cardiologists' assessments of patient eligibility for specialist health care. Forty-two cardiologists in Norway and 48 in Denmark were presented with two standardized case vignettes in the form of patient referrals and were asked to assess whether the patient was eligible for treatment by a specialist, and if so, what waiting time would be assigned to the patient. RESULTS: Primarily based on descriptive statistics, our findings indicate interesting similarities and variations. While there was only minor variation across the countries in cardiologists' professional assessments about a patient with a more severe condition, judgements of eligibility for specialist treatment varied for a patient with a less severe medical condition. Moreover, Danish cardiologists distinguished between the more severe and less severe conditions to a much lesser extent when assessing eligibility for specialist treatment. For waiting times, there was considerable variation at the general level, from 1 week to 6 months. The assigned waiting times were on average double those for Norwegian cardiologists compared with their Danish counterparts. Denmark's legal standardization of waiting times appears to lead to shorter waiting times than those prescribed by Norway's legal regulations. CONCLUSION: For a single clear overall intention with a new policy, simpler legal regulations may be more effective than very detailed and specific requirements. If policymakers' overall intention is for medical doctors to make complex decisions involving the prioritization of patients, then more individualized regulations seem to be a better tool.