Conservation or disappearance? The public provider of home care services in a system of choice

Figures & data

Table 1. Included variables in the empirical analysis. Minimum value, maximum value, mean value and standard deviation. N = 146

Variables, municipal level	Minimum	Maximum	Mean value	Standard deviation
Number of home-care recipients in total (all providers), 2018	106	18,073	1,119	1,882
Share of home-care recipients with the public provider (as a percentage of home-care recipients in total), 2018	0	100	84.2	20.6
Population density (inhabitants per square kilometre), 2018	0.80	5,819	256	766
Years with LOV (up to 2018; adoption of LOV 2018 = 0)	0	6	5	1.53
Votes on the Social Democrats (as a percentage of all votes), municipal election 2014	6.9	46.7	30.9	7.2
Votes on the ‘Alliance’ (as a percentage of all votes), municipal election 2014	21.9	82.6	42.9	8.6

Sources: Data from SCB (2020), SKR (2019b) and Socialstyrelsen (2019b).

Figure 1. Number of municipalities with LOV 2010–2019

Note: The data includes home-care services as well as other services, but few municipalities with LOV has not implemented it in home-care services. Total number of municipalities in Sweden: 290.Source: Data from SKR (2019a).

Table 2. Share of care recipients with the public provider in home-care services, 2018

Percentage of care recipients with the public provider
	0–20%	21–40%	41–50%	51–60%	61–70%	71–80%	81–85%	86–90%	91–95%	96–99%	100%	Total
Number of municipalities	5	3	1	5	11	15	15	14	17	27	33	146

Note: Number of municipalities with LOV within home-care services in each category, 2018. Total: 146 municipalities because of missing data. Total number of municipalities with LOV within home-care services: 158. Total number of municipalities in Sweden: 290.

Source: Data from Socialstyrelsen (2019b).

Figure 2. Correlation between care recipients in total and care recipients with the public provider

Note: To facilitate interpretation, we excluded municipalities with the largest number of care recipients (extreme values) from the figure.Sources: Data from Socialstyrelsen (2019b).

Figure 3. Correlation between population density and care recipients with the public provider

Note: To facilitate interpretation, we excluded municipalities with the highest population density (extreme values) from the figure. Sources: Data from SCB (2020) and Socialstyrelsen (2019b).

Figure 4. Correlation between votes on the Social Democrats and care recipients with the public provider. Sources: Data from SCB (2020) and Socialstyrelsen (2019b)

Table 3. Estimation of the models’ effect on percentage of care recipients with the public provider. Unstandardized regression coefficients and heteroskedasticity consistent standard errors

	Model A		Model B		Model C
	B	Std. Error	B	Std. Error	B	Std. Error
Care Recipients in Total	−4.460**	1.618	−3.898*	1.768	−4.417**	1.549
Population Density	−3.973***	1.208	−3.837***	1.217	−4.130***	1.188
Years with LOV	−2.639**	.874	−2.512*	.991	−2.704***	.815
Voter support for the Social Democrats	.115	.289	.574*	.287	.	.
Voter support for the ‘Alliance’	−.538*	.224	.	.	−.597**	.216
Constant	162.542***	18.275	120.435***	12.416	169.349***	13.790
R^2	.343		.317		.342
Adj. R^2	.320		.297		.324
N	146		146		146

*** p ≤ 0.001; ** 0.001 < p ≤ 0.01; * 0.01 < p ≤ 0.05

Note: Care recipients in total and population density have been log-transformed to prevent extreme values from potentially distorting the results.

Sources: Data from SCB (2020), SKR (2018, 2019b) and Socialstyrelsen (2019b).

SCB.2020. Statistikdatabasen. (accessed 1 June 2020). http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se

 Google Scholar

SKR. 2019b. “LOV Införande„ (Xls-file).

 Google Scholar

Socialstyrelsen. 2019b. “Statistik Om Äldre Och Personer Med Funktionsnedsättning Efter Regiform 2018.” (accessed 1 June 2020). http://www.socialstyrelsen.se

 Google Scholar

SKR. 2019a. Köp Av Verksamhet 2019: Kommuner Och Regioner 2006–2018. Stockholm: SKR.

 Google Scholar

SKR. 2018. “Kommunernas Valfrihetssystem - Beslutsläge Oktober 2018”.

 Google Scholar