Healthcare providers in the English National Health Service: public, private or hybrids?

In recent years it has been noted that boundaries between public and private providers of many types of welfare have become blurred. This paper uses three dimensions of publicness to analyse this blurring of boundaries in relation to providers of healthcare in England. The authors find that, although most care is still funded and provided by the state, there are significant additional factors in respect of ownership and social control which indicate that many English healthcare providers are better understood as hybrids. Furthermore, the authors raise concerns about the possible deleterious effects of diminishing aspects of publicness on English healthcare. The most important of these is a decrease in accountability

Access, equity and the role of rights in health care

Modern health care rhetoric promotes choice and individual patient rights as dominant values. Yet we also accept that in any regime constrained by finite resources, difficult choices between patients are inevitable. How can we balance rights to liberty, on the one hand, with equity in the allocation of scarce resources on the other? For example, the duty of health authorities to allocate resources is a duty owed to the community as a whole, rather than to specific individuals. Macro-duties of this nature are founded on the notion of equity and fairness amongst individuals rather than personal liberty. They presume that if hard choices have to be made, they will be resolved according to fair and consistent principles which treat equal cases equally, and unequal cases unequally. In this paper, we argue for greater clarity and candour in the health care rights debate. With this in mind, we discuss (1) private and public rights, (2) negative and positive rights, (3) procedural and substantive rights, (4) sustainable health care rights and (5) the New Zealand booking system for prioritising access to elective services. This system aims to consider: individual need and ability to benefit alongside the resources made available to elective health services in an attempt to give the principles of equity practical effect. We describe a continuum on which the merits of those, sometimes competing, values-liberty and equity-can be evaluated and assessed.

Building synergies in development research: The application of the mosaic model to animal health research

Development research has responded to a number of charges over the past few decades. For example, when traditional research was accused of being 'top-down', the response was participatory research, linking the 'receptors' to the generators of research. As participatory processes were recognised as producing limited outcomes, the demand-led agenda was born. In response to the alleged failure of research to deliver its products, the 'joined-up' model, which links research with the private sector, has become popular. However, using examples from animal-health research, this article demonstrates that all the aforementioned approaches are seriously limited in their attempts to generate outputs to address the multi-faceted problems facing the poor. The article outlines a new approach to research: the Mosaic Model. By combining different knowledge forms, and focusing on existing gaps, the model aims to bridge basic and applied findings to enhance the efficiency and value of research, past, present, and future.

Provider diversity in the English NHS: a study of recent developments in four local health economies

Objectives: The overall objective of the research was to assess the impact of provider diversity on quality and innovation in the English NHS. The aims were to map the extent of diverse provider activity, identify the differences in performance between Third Sector Organisations (TSOs), for-profit private enterprises, and incumbent organisations within the NHS, and the factors that affect the entry and growth of new private and TSOs. Methods: Case studies of four Local Health Economies (LHEs). Data included: semi-structured interviews with 48 managerial and clinical staff from NHS organizations and providers from the private and Third Sector; some documentary evidence; a focus group with service users; and routine data from the Care Quality Commission and Companies House. Data collection was mainly between November 2008 and November 2009. Results: Involvement of diverse providers in the NHS is limited. Commissioners’ local strategies influence degrees of diversity. Barriers to the entry for TSOs include lack of economies of scale in the bidding process. Private providers have greater concern to improve patient pathways and patient experience, whereas TSOs deliver quality improvements by using a more holistic approach and a greater degree of community involvement. Entry of new providers drives NHS Trusts to respond by making improvements. Information sharing diminishes as competition intensifies. Conclusions: There is scope to increase the participation of diverse providers in the NHS, but care must be taken not to damage public accountability, overall productivity, equity and NHS providers (especially acute hospitals, which are likely to remain in the NHS) in the process.

Health care rights and NHS rationing: turning theory into practice

How should we understand the nature of patients’ right in public health care systems? Are health care rights different to rights under a private contract for car insurance? This article distinguishes between public and private rights and the relevance of community interests and notions of social solidarity. It discusses the distinction between political and civil rights, and social and economic rights and the inherently political and redistributive nature of the latter. Nevertheless, social and economic rights certainly give rise to “rights” enforceable by the courts. In the UK (as in many other jurisdictions), the courts have favoured a “procedural” approach to the question, in which the courts closely scrutinise decisions and demand high standards of rationality from decision-makers. However, although this is the general rule, the article also discusses a number of exceptional cases where “substantive” remedies are available which guarantee patients access to the care they need.