Search

The remit of the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research (PHR) Programme is to evaluate public health interventions, providing new knowledge on the benefits, costs, acceptability and wider impacts of interventions, set outside of the National Health Service, intended to improve the health of the public and reduce inequalities. This paper illustrates how the PHR Programme is providing new knowledge for public health decision makers, based on the nine key areas for local authority public health action, described by the King's Fund. Many funded PHR projects are evaluating interventions, applied in a range of settings, across the identified key areas for local authority influence. For example, research has been funded on children and young people, and for some of the wider determinants of health, such as housing and travel. Other factors, such as spatial planning, or open and green spaces and leisure, are less represented in the PHR Programme. Further opportunities in research include interventions to improve the health of adolescents, adults in workplaces, and communities. Building evidence for public health interventions at local authority level is important to prioritise and implement effective changes to improve population health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The capacity to provide satisfactory nursing care is being increasingly compromised by current trajectories of healthcare funding and governance. The purpose of this paper is to examine how well Marxist theories of the state and its relationship with capital can explain these trajectories in this period of ever-increasing austerity. Following a brief history of the current crisis, it examines empirically the effects of the crisis, and of the current trajectory of capitalism in general, upon the funding and organization of the UK and US healthcare systems. The deleterious effect of growing income inequalities to the health of the population is also addressed. Marx's writings on the state and its relation to the capitalist class were fragmentary and historically and geographically specific. From them, we can extract three theoretical variants: the instrumentalist theory of the state, where the state has no autonomy from capital; the abdication theory, whereby capital abstains from direct political power and relies on the state to serve its interests; and the class-balance theory, whereby the struggle between two opposed classes allows the state to assert itself. Discussion of modern Marxist interpretations includes Poulantzas's abdication theory and Miliband's instrumentalist theory. It is concluded that, despite the pluralism of electoral democracies, the bourgeoisie do have an overweening influence upon the state. The bourgeoisie's ownership of the means of production provides the foundation for its influence because the state is obliged to rely on it to manage the supply of goods and services and the creation of wealth. That power is further reinforced by the infiltration of the bourgeoisie into the organs of state. The level of influence has accelerated rapidly over recent decades. One of the consequences of this has been that healthcare systems have become rich pickings for the evermore confident bourgeoisie. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 envisions a significant increase in federal oversight over the nation's health care system. At the same time, however, the legislation requires the states to play key roles in every aspect of the reform agenda (such as expanding Medicaid programs, creating insurance exchanges, and working with providers on delivery-system reforms). The complicated intergovernmental partnerships that govern the nation's fragmented and decentralized system are likely to continue, albeit with greater federal oversight and control. But what about intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom? What impact did the formal devolution of power in 1999 to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have on health policy in those nations, and in the United Kingdom more generally? Has devolution begun a political process in which health policy in the United Kingdom will, over time, become increasingly decentralized and fragmented, or will this "state of unions" retain its long-standing reputation as perhaps the most centralized of the European nations? In this article, we explore the federalist and intergovernmental implications of recent reforms in the United States and the United Kingdom, and we put forward the argument that political fragmentation (long-standing in the United States and just emerging in the United Kingdom) produces new intergovernmental partnerships that, in turn, produce incremental growth in overall government involvement in the health care arena. This is the impact of what can be called catalytic federalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most governments devote considerable resources to the provision of private goods such as health, housing, and education. Moreover many such schemes are universal in the sense that everyone is eligible and provision is free. In Great Britain, for example, the National Health Service (NHS) offers free health care to all citizens, while; in the U.S. the public school system provides free high school education. The purpose of this article is to point out that such universal provision schemes can redistribute income: from the rich to the poor, even if they are financed by a head tax. The key to this argument is a discrete-choice model between private and public sector consumption in which individuals demand at most one unit of the publicly provided good while caring about its quality. This seems reasonable for a number of cases. Parents want their children to have a high school education, and individuals' health care needs are manifested in the form of a demand for a particular course of treatment. It is typically neither desirable nor even possible for a child to attend two schools at once or for an individual to receive health care from two different sources simultaneously.