Globalisation, markets and healthcare policy:redrawing the patient as consumer

Although the last two decades have seen the healthcare systems of most developed countries face pressure for major reform, the impact of this reform on the relationship between empowerment, consumerism and citizen’s rights has received limited research attention. Globalisation, Markets and Healthcare Policy sets out to redress this imbalance. This book explores the extent to which globalisation and commercialisation relate to current and emerging health policies. It also looks at the implications for citizens, patients and social rights, as well as how policy making interacts with the interests of global and European trade and economic policies. Topics discussed include: •How the impact of globalisation on health systems is apparent in the influence of international actors and European policies. •How the impact of globalisation is mediated by national priorities and policies and is therefore reflected in diverse influences. •How commercialisation of health is presented as benefiting citizens and patients but has the potential to undermine the aims and values inherent in health systems. •How the role of citizens' interests, social rights, patient’s rights and priorities of patient and public involvement need to be separated from commercialisation, choice and consumerism in health care. Essential reading for policy makers and students of public policy, politics, law and health services, Globalisation, Markets and Healthcare Policy will also appeal to those interested in patient involvement international healthcare, international relations, trans-national organisations and the EU.

Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions:why the difference matters

Patient and public involvement has become an integral aspect of many developed health systems and is judged to be an essential driver for reform. However, little attention has been paid to the distinctions between patients and the public, and the views of patients are often seen to encompass those of the general public. Using an ideal-type approach, we analyse crucial distinctions between patient involvement and public involvement using examples from Sweden and England. We highlight that patients have sectional interests as health service users in contrast to citizens who engage as a public policy agent reflecting societal interests. Patients draw on experiential knowledge and focus on output legitimacy and performance accountability, aim at typical representativeness, and a direct responsiveness to individual needs and preferences. In contrast, the public contributes with collective perspectives generated from diversity, centres on input legitimacy achieved through statistical representativeness, democratic accountability and indirect responsiveness to general citizen preferences. Thus, using patients as proxies for the public fails to achieve intended goals and benefits of involvement. We conclude that understanding and measuring the impact of patient and public involvement can only develop with the application of a clearer comprehension of the differences.