Biomedical subjects
Alex Gibson
Publications and source records attributed to Alex Gibson.
Rationing in response to NHS deficits: rural patients are likely to be affected most.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The pursuit of equity in NHS resource allocation: should morbidity replace utilisation as the basis for setting health care capitations?
Although the English NHS has been described as a world leader in pioneering methods of distributing expenditure in relation to population needs, concerns about the legitimacy of using the current utilisation-based model to allocate health service resources are mounting. In this paper, we present a critical review of NHS resource allocation in England and demonstrate the feasibility and impact of using direct health estimates as a basis for setting health care capitations. Comparing target allocations for the inpatient treatment of coronary heart disease in a sample of 34 primary care trusts in contrasting locations in England, we find that a morbidity-based model would result in a significant shift in hospital resources away from deprived areas, towards areas with older demographic profiles and towards rural areas. Discussing the findings in relation to a wider policy context that is generally concerned to direct more health care resources towards the poor, the paper concludes by calling for greater clarity between the goals of health care equity and health equity. Whilst the former demands that the legitimate needs of demographically older populations for more health care resources are acknowledged, the goal of health equity requires real political commitment to resource broader social policy initiatives.
Allocating resources for health and social care: the significance of rurality.
Whilst an allowance is made for sparsity in the allocation of resources for social care services in England, rurality is not a significant factor in health resource allocation. This lack of consistency in resource allocation criteria has become increasingly visible as health and social services departments are required to work in partnership across a range of areas. Differences in funding mechanisms also raise the question of why it is legitimate to make adjustments for rurality in the distribution of some public services, but not for others. Against this background, the present paper considers the case for a rural premium in health resource allocation which, it proposes, can be made on four grounds. First, there is evidence that the current National Health Service (NHS) formula introduces systematic biases in favour of urban areas in the way in which it expresses 'need' for healthcare. Secondly, the way in which the current system compensates for unavoidable variations in the costs of providing services takes insufficient account of the additional costs associated with rural service provision. Thirdly, with a growing emphasis on the need to attain national quality standards, rural primary care trusts and social services departments can no longer tolerate lower levels of services. Finally, a case for a rural premium can be made on the basis of precedent. England is the only country in the UK that does not make a major adjustment for rurality in its NHS formula. The paper concludes that the English NHS resource allocation system has done little to counter marked service deprivation in rural areas. Given evidence that rural local authorities also spend less on social care services and direct provision, this raises serious questions about the extent to which the needs of vulnerable people in English rural areas are being adequately served.