Capitalism, the state and health care in the age of austerity:A Marxist analysis

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 are 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 of the state, whereby the struggle between two opposed classes allows the state to assert itself. Discussion of modern Marxist interpretations include Poulantzas’s structuralist 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.

Bolivian health and social care professionals' experiences of decision-making in oncology and palliative care

In the UK, end-of-life care strategies recommend patients and families are involved in decision making around treatment and care. In Bolivia, such strategies do not exist, and access to oncology services depends on finance, geography, education and culture. Compared to more developed countries, the delivery of oncology services in Latin America may result in a higher percentage of patients presenting with advanced incurable disease. The objective of this study was to explore decision-making experiences of health and social care professionals who cared for oncology and palliative care patients attending the Instituto Oncológico Nacional, Cochabamba (Bolivia). Patients were predominantly from the Quechua tradition, which has its own ethnic diversity, linguistic distinctions and economic systems. Qualitative data were collected during focus groups. Data analysis was conducted using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Three interrelated themes emerged: (i) making sense of structures of experience and relationality; (ii) frustration with the system; and (iii) the challenges of promoting shared decision making. The study uncovered participants' lived experiences, emotions and perceptions of providing care for Quechua patients. There was evidence of structural inequalities, the marginalisation of Quechua patients and areas of concern that social workers might well be equipped to respond to, such as accessing finances for treatment/care, education and alleviating psychological or spiritual suffering.

An international comparison of legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making in mental health services

There have been important recent developments in law, research, policy and practice relating to supporting people with decision-making impairments, in particular when a person’s wishes and preferences are unclear or inaccessible. A driver in this respect is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the implications of the CRPD for policy and professional practices are currently debated. This article reviews and compares four legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making for people whose decision-making ability is impaired. In particular, it explores how these frameworks may apply to people with mental health problems. The four jurisdictions are: Ontario, Canada; Victoria, Australia; England and Wales, United Kingdom (UK); and Northern Ireland, UK. Comparisons and contrasts are made in the key areas of: the legal framework for supported and substitute decision-making; the criteria for intervention; the assessment process; the safeguards; and issues in practice. Thus Ontario has developed a relatively comprehensive, progressive and influential legal framework over the past thirty years but there remain concerns about the standardisation of decision-making ability assessments and how the laws work together. In Australia, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) has recommended that the six different types of substitute decision-making under the three laws in that jurisdiction, need to be simplified, and integrated into a spectrum that includes supported decision-making. In England and Wales the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has a complex interface with mental health law. In Northern Ireland it is proposed to introduce a new Mental Capacity (Health, Welfare and Finance) Bill that will provide a unified structure for all substitute decision-making. The discussion will consider the key strengths and limitations of the approaches in each jurisdiction and identify possible ways that further progress can be made in law, policy and practice.

Does the UK Local Finance Improvement Trust (Lift) Initiative Improve Risk Management in Public-Private Procurement?

The UK government introduced the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and, latterly, the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) in an attempt to improve public service provision. As a variant of PFI, LIFT seeks to create a framework for the effective provision of primary care facilities. Like conventional PFI procurement, LIFT projects involve long-term contracts, complex multi-party interactions and thus create various risks to public sector clients. This paper investigates the advantages and disadvantages of LIFT with a focus on how this approach facilitates or impedes risk management from the public sector client perspective. Our paper concludes that LIFT has a potential for creating additional problems, including the further reduction of public sector control, conflicts of interest, the inappropriate use of enabling funds, and higher than market rental costs affecting the uptake of space in the buildings by local health care providers. However, there is also evidence that LIFT has facilitated new investment and that Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) have themselves started addressing some of the weaknesses of this procurement format through the bundling of projects and other forms of regional co-operation.