PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8281064

Making the internal market work: a case for managed change.

Abstract

The internal market in the NHS is meant to ensure that provider units compete on the basis of price and quality and that money follows patients into efficient units. But the example of what happened to one local ophthalmology unit suggests what may go wrong when entrepreneurial activity is applied in a market that does not work perfectly. In 1991-2 the unit had a high workload but also comparatively high prices (because of crude pricing in the local hospital); because of pressure of work the waiting times lengthened and general practitioners increasingly complained about the service. The staff in the unit reopened a longstanding debate about the need for a third consultant ophthalmologist, but neither the purchasers (including fundholders) nor the provider unit were able to fund the post. Fundholders in a neighbouring district, however, together with that district health authority, decided to place their contracts elsewhere for the following year. Although the withdrawal of contracts jeopardised the clinical and financial viability of the ophthalmic unit, patients continued to use the service. When general practitioners in the district realised that their local service might collapse they pressed to keep the service open. The fundholders and the host purchaser finally agreed to fund a third consultant and drew up standards for the service. As a result the waiting times fell and the service is now described as "excellent." Short term market decisions may have unforseen long term implications for services to patients. This needs to be addressed as part of the evolution of the reformed NHS.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Moore, M Dalziel. 1993-11-13. Making the internal market work: a case for managed change.. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.307.6914.1270

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Predicting costs of mental health care: a critical literature review.

BACKGROUND: Cost evaluation research in the mental health field is being increasingly recognized as a way to achieve a more effective deployment of scarce resources. However, there is a paucity of studies that seek to identify predictors of psychiatric service utilization and costs. This paper aims to critically review the published research in the field of psychiatric service utilization and costs, and discusses current methodological developments in this field. METHOD: Sixteen studies were identified and are critically reviewed. RESULTS: No single variable alone can explain variations in costs between patients; instead, a range of different clinical and non-clinical variables provides a greater explanation of cost variations. Having a history of previous psychiatric service use is the most consistent predictor of higher psychiatric costs. Only one study considers indirect costs incurred by users, their families and friends and society as a whole, with the remaining 15 studies focusing on direct mental health care costs. There is a lack of studies that consider the future psychiatric service utilization and costs of care of children and older people. The cross-validation of predictive models is not yet routine, with only four of the studies including a cross-validation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive approach in mental health cost evaluation has relevance for both mental health policy and practice. However, there is a paucity of studies that focus on children, older people and indirect costs. Furthermore, there remain a number of methodological challenges to address.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗

The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the cost and availability of a standard basket of healthy food items (the Healthy Food Access Basket [HFAB]) in Queensland over time. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A series of four cross-sectional surveys (in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004) describing the cost and availability of foods in the HFAB over time. In the latest survey, 97 Queensland food stores across the five Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness categories were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost comparisons for HFAB items by remoteness category for the 97 stores surveyed in 2004; changes in cost and availability of foods in the 81 stores surveyed since 2000; comparisons of food prices in the 56 stores surveyed in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004. RESULTS: In 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB was $395.28 a fortnight. The cost of the HFAB was 29.6% ($113.89) higher in "very remote" areas than in "major cities" (P < 0.001). Between 2001 and 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB increased by 14.0% ($48.45), while in very remote areas the cost increased by 18.0% ($76.93) (P < 0.001). Since 2000, the annualised per cent increase in cost of the HFAB has been higher than the increase in Consumer Price Index for food in Brisbane. The cost of healthy foods has risen more than the cost of some less nutritious foods, so that the latter are now relatively more affordable. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers, particularly those in very remote locations, need to pay substantially more for basic healthy foods than they did a few years ago. Higher prices are likely to be a barrier to good health among people of low socioeconomic status and other vulnerable groups. Interventions to make basic healthy food affordable and accessible to all would help reduce the high burden of chronic disease.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗