Search

There are substantial inequities within the current National Health Service (NHS), with people in lower socioeconomic groups (SEGs) using a wide range of services less relative to their needs than people in higher SEGs. These inequities are likely to arise due to factors on both the demand and the supply side of the system. On the demand side, they could arise from differences in patients' beliefs, knowledge, costs, resources and capabilities. On the supply side, professional beliefs and attitudes, and risk selection or cream-skimming by providers may result in inequities. This paper discusses whether these factors are at play within the English NHS and analyses whether current policy to extend patient choice of provider is likely to reduce or increase these inequities. It shows that extending patient choice may leave unchanged inequity due to differences in health beliefs (because choice does not affect these directly), increase inequity due to unequal resources (because patients may have to travel further), and decrease inequity due to unequal capabilities (because the poor will have access to a new and, for them a more effective, source of leverage over health service professionals). On the supply side, there will be little change. The paper then discusses policy options for dealing with factors that contribute to greater inequity on the demand side. It proposes a package of supported choice whereby individuals from lower SEGs would receive assistance in making choices, including an identified key worker to act as patient care adviser and help with transport costs. The paper concludes that policies for extending patient choice can enhance equity – so long as they are properly designed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I aim to re-establish the meaning and importance of the concept of 'evidence-based policy making' (EBP) in health care. The term EBP is often misunderstood as being either vacuous (who thinks that public policy should not be based on evidence?), unrealistic (the naive product of ivory tower thinking) or conservative (an excuse permanently to delay reform). It need be none of these things. EBP should be thought of as a set of rules and institutional arrangements designed to encourage transparent and balanced use of evidence in public policy making. As well as controlled trials and observational studies, a broad range of theoretical and empirical evidence about human behaviour may be relevant to predicting policy outcomes - including stakeholder opinions and other sources of intelligence that might not qualify as scientific research. Gradual progress towards EBP, properly understood, has the potential to facilitate open democracy and to improve policy outcomes. The argument is illustrated using examples based on large-scale policies of health care reform in England, where progress towards EBP over the last decade has been real but modest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contrasts the views of two prominent politicians on the ways in which the distribution of hospital services should be organised, and relates them to the views of Hayek on the nature of planning. It is argued that, in relying on an independent regulator to supervise access to health care under the new 'foundation' hospitals regime in the English National Health Service (NHS), not only is the Labour government distancing itself clearly from old-style top-down planning, it also risks greater variability in the definition of fair access to health care. There are relevant historical parallels with the mixed economy of the pre-NHS era that policy-makers should make explicit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Government policies and initiatives in England have promoted the involvement of patients in the management of their own health care. Copying clinical letters to patients may improve patients' understanding of their health and the care they receive. Although the National Health Service (NHS) Plan describes copying letters to patients as a 'right', the process of copying letters to patients remains an example of good practice rather than a requirement. We review the literature to explore whether letters should be copied to patients and in what circumstances. Methods: Review of published literature and evidence from 12 pilot projects funded by the Department of Health (DH) for and against copying letters to patients from the perspective of patients and health professionals. Results: Patients generally find copies of letters beneficial, and tend to be more satisfied with their consultation and report benefits in terms of involvement in their own health care when letters are copied. Health professionals generally have concerns about the relative benefits to the patient and remain concerned about the resource implications of copying letters. Conclusions: On balance, the limited evidence on copying clinical letters to patients favours copying letters, or at least offering copies, although health professionals are less keen than patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The shift in the balance of health care, bringing services 'closer to home', is a well-established trend. This study sought to provide insight into the consequences of this trend, in particular the stimulation of demand, by exploring the underlying feedback structure. Methods: We constructed a simulation model using the system dynamics method, which is specifically designed for the analysis of feedback structure. The model was calibrated to two cases of the shift in cardiac catheterization services in the UK. Data sources included archival data, observations and interviews with senior health care professionals. Key model outputs were the basic trends displayed by waiting lists, average waiting times, cumulative patient referrals, cumulative patient activity and cumulative overall costs. Results: Demand was stimulated in both cases via several different mechanisms. We revealed the roles for clinical guidelines and capacity changes, and the typical responses to imbalances between supply and demand. Our analysis also demonstrated the potential benefits of changing the goals that drive activity by seeking a waiting list goal rather than a waiting time goal. Conclusions: Appreciating the wider consequences of shifting the balance of care is essential if services are to be improved overall. The underlying feedback mechanisms of both intended and unintended effects need to be understood. Using a systemic approach, more effective policies may be designed through coordinated programmes rather than isolated initiatives, which may have only a limited impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the issue whether the Great Britain National Health Service be freed from political control. The author points out that politicians themselves are publicly involved for the care provided for a particular patient. He believes that the government should not be involved in managing the system. It should then be left to managers to think of ways to achieve the visions of their political masters.

The author reflects on the impact of the devolution of health care in Great Britain. It discusses the outcome of two different policy paradigms, the traditional knightly policy paradigm and the policy paradigm of provider challenge, especially in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It notes the vulnerability of smaller countries in Great Britain to provider capture because of their reluctance to abandon the knightly policy paradigm.