Whose health, whose care, whose say? Some comments on public involvement in new NHS commissioning arrangements

Recent health policy in England has demanded greater involvement of patients and the public in the commissioning of health and social care services. Public involvement is seen as a means of driving up service quality, reducing health inequalities and achieving value in commissioning decisions. This paper presents a summary and analysis of the forms that public involvement in commissioning are to take, along with empirical analysis from a qualitative study of service-user involvement. It is argued that the diversity of constituencies covered by the notion of ‘public involvement’, and the breadth of aims that public involvement is expected to achieve, require careful disaggregation. Public involvement in commissioning may encompass a variety of interest groups, whose inputs may include population needs assessment, evaluation of service quality, advocacy of the interests of a particular patient group or service, or a combination of all of these. Each of these roles may be legitimate, but there are significant tensions between them. The extent to which the structures for public involvement proposed recognize these possible tensions is arguably limited. Notably, new Local Involvement Networks (LINks), which will feed into commissioning decisions, are set as the arbiters of these different interests, a demanding role which will require considerable skill, tenacity and robustness if it is to be fulfilled effectively.

The dynamics of professions and development of new roles in public services organizations: the case of modern matrons in the English NHS

This study contributes to research examining how professional autonomy and hierarchy impacts upon the implementation of policy designed to improve the quality of public services delivery through the introduction of new managerial roles. It is based on an empirical examination of a new role for nurses – modern matrons – who are expected by policy-makers to drive organizational change aimed at tackling health care acquired infections (HCAI) in the National Health Service (NHS) within England. First, we show that the changing role of nurses associated with their ongoing professionalization limits the influence of modern matrons over their own ranks in tackling HCAI. Second, the influence of modern matrons over doctors is limited. Third, government policy itself appears inconsistent in its support for the role of modern matrons. The attempts of modern matrons to tackle HCAI appear more effective where infection control activity is situated in professional practice and where modern matrons integrate aspirations for improved infection control within mainstream audit mechanisms in a health care organization.

Towards a research agenda in collaborative sport governance

Collaborative governance has its origins in public administration and relates to cross-sector collaboration between parties who, by working together, may achieve common goals and more optimum outcomes than by working in isolation. The purpose of this paper is to explore the utility of collaborative governance as a relevant theoretical underpinning upon which to base future sport governance research focussed on the federal model of governance. To do this, we draw on an integrative framework of collaborative governance from the public administration literature to identify relevant research questions instructive for new research directions in sport governance. We offer evidence indicating that the federal model of sport governance is the type of network well-suited to the adoption of a collaborative governance regime but conclude there are barriers and challenges that could inhibit its implementation. The outcome of our work is a research agenda to guide research and theory development that may enhance our understanding of collaborative governance in sport, and of the barriers to its adoption and how they may be overcome.

International medicines governance 1940s to 1970s : lessons for public health

Public health advocates aim to maximise affordable access to good quality essential medicines. This goal often conflicts with the profit-seeking ambitions of the pharmaceutical industry. Since the World Trade Organisation’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement, the extension and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights has become the dominant discourse in global medicines governance. Public health advocates operating within this framework face significant obstacles and challenges. This paper presents an historical perspective to the contemporary debate over medicines and patents by examining the evolution of international medicines governance between the 1940s and 1970s. This research indicates that debates around IP and medicines were more advanced in terms of equity and access in the 1960s and 1970s than they are today. While acknowledging the existence of obstacles and challenges for advocates, the paper argues that alternative frameworks can and should be reasserted in global debates about medicines governance.

Financial and Criminal Responsibility for Public Funds – Protection of the Constitutional Fundamental Social Law of Health

Abstract: The implementation of Fundamental Constitutional Health and Social Rights is necessary, appropriate and proportionate, following the demands of the population. Accountability and self-responsibility play a very important role. This requires the development of constitutional principles that protect public funds against corruption and offer a constitutional right to health protection. Financial and criminal liability might provide an incentive to improve the management of public funds and reinforce fundamental constitutional principles, particularly regarding the right to health. Constitutional, administrative and criminal issues, as well as public management and administration and the science of good governance, should be articulated in a single strategy also in the health sector. In Portugal and Brazil, as examples, the Federal Court / Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court / High Court of Justice or the Court of Auditors should be considered together.

New methodologies for risk assessment of GMOs: an experiment of public consultation in Brazil.

2008