Search

The period 2010–2013 was a time of far-reaching structural reforms of the National Health Service in England. Of particular interest in this paper is the way in which radical critiques of the reform process were marginalised by pragmatic concerns about how to maintain the market-competition thrust of the reforms while avoiding potential fragmentation. We draw on the Essex school of political discourse theory and develop a ‘nodal’ analytical framework to argue that widespread and repeated appeals to a narrative of choice-based integrated care served to take the fragmentation ‘sting’ out of radical critiques of the pro-competition reform process. This served to marginalise alternative visions of health and social care, and to pre-empt the contestation of a key norm in the provision of health care that is closely associated with the notions of ‘any willing provider’ and ‘any qualified provider’: provider-blind provision. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The 2012 Health and Social Care Act, introduced by the coalition government, has been seen as fundamentally changing the form and content of publicly funded health care provision in England. The legislation was hugely controversial and widely criticized. Much of this criticism pointed to the ways in which the reforms undermined the funding of the National Health Service, and challenged the founding principle of free universal provision. In this commentary we take issue with the argument that the Act represented a radical break with the past and instead suggest that it was an extension of the previous Labour government’s neo-liberal reforms of the public sector. In particular, the Act invoked the principles of ‘new professionalism’ to undermine professional dominance, and attract private providers into statutory health care at the expense of public providers. In turn, this extension of new professionalism may encourage public distrust in the medical profession and absolve the state of much of its statutory health care obligation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]