No evidence that patient choice in the NHS saves lives

Pollock, Allyson M; Macfarlane, Alison; Kirkwood, Graham; Majeed, Azeem; Greener, Ian; Morelli, Carlo; Boyle, Seán; Mellett, Howard; Godden, Sylvia; Price, David; Brhlíková, Petra

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61553-5

Cited by 45 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These controversial subjects sometimes provoke objections 248 that the researchers selected outcomes likely to produce findings supporting their policy preferences. We minimised that risk by analysing multiple outcomes, and some of the outcome measures we used were sensitive to competition; but since our analysis was limited to published data it remains conceivable that yet further outcomes would be more sensitive to competition.…”

Section: Nhs Commissioning Practice and Governance Over Health Economiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

NHS commissioning practice and health system governance: a mixed-methods realistic evaluation

Sheaff

Charles

Mahon

et al. 2015

Health Services and Delivery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBy 2010 English health policy-makers had concluded that the main NHS commissioners [primary care trusts (PCTs)] did not sufficiently control provider costs and performance. After the 2010 general election, they decided to replace PCTs with general practitioner (GP)-controlled Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). Health-care commissioners have six main media of power for exercising control over providers, which can be used in different combinations (‘modes of commissioning’).ObjectivesTo: elicit the programme theory of NHS commissioning policy and empirically test its assumptions; explain what shaped NHS commissioning structures; examine how far current commissioning practice allowed commissioners to exercise governance over providers; examine how commissioning practices differ in different types of commissioning organisation and for specific care groups; and explain what factors influenced commissioning practice and the relationships between commissioners and providers.DesignMixed-methods realistic evaluation, comprising: Leximancer and cognitive frame analyses of policy statements to elicit the programme theory of NHS commissioning policy; exploratory cross-sectional analysis of publicly available managerial data about PCTs; systematic comparison of case studies of commissioning in four English sites – including commissioning for older people at risk of unplanned hospital admission; mental health; public health; and planned orthopaedic surgery – and of English NHS commissioning practice with that of a German sick-fund and an Italian region (Lombardy); action learning sets, to validate the findings and draw out practical implications; and two framework analyses synthesising the findings and testing the programme theory empirically.ResultsIn the four English case study sites, CCGs were formed by recycling former commissioning structures, relying on and maintaining the existing GP commissioning leaderships. The stability of distributed commissioning depended on the convergence of commissioners’ interests. Joint NHS and local government commissioning was more co-ordinated at strategic than operational level. NHS providers’ responsiveness to commissioners reflected how far their interests converged, but also providers’ own internal ability to implement agreements. Commissioning for mental health services and to prevent recurrent unplanned hospital readmissions relied more on local ‘micro-commissioning’ (collaborative care pathway design) than on competition. Service commissioning was irrelevant to intersectoral health promotion, but not clinical prevention work. On balance, the possibility of competition did not affect service outcomes in the ways that English NHS commissioning policies assumed. ‘Commodified’ planned orthopaedic surgery most lent itself to provider competition. In all three countries, tariff payments increased provider activity and commissioners’ costs. To contain costs, commissioners bundled tariff payments into blocks, agreed prospective case loads with providers and paid below-tariff rates for additional cases. Managerial performance, negotiated order and discursive control were the predominant media of power used by English, German and Italian commissioners.ConclusionsCommissioning practice worked in certain respects differently from what NHS commissioning policy assumed. It was often laborious and uncertain. In the four English case study sites financial and ‘real-side’ contract negotiations were partly decoupled, clinician involvement being least on the financial side. Tariff systems weakened commissioners’ capacity to choose providers and control costs. Commissioners adapted the systems to solve this problem. Our findings suggest a need for further research into whether or not differently owned providers (corporate, third sector, public, professional partnership, etc.) respond differently to health-care commissioners and, if so, what specific implications for commissioning practice follow. They also suggest that further work is needed to assess how commissioning practices impact on health system integration when care pathways have to be constructed across multiple providers that must tender competitively for work, perhaps against each other.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Section: Nhs Commissioning Practice and Governance Over Health Economiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

NHS commissioning practice and health system governance: a mixed-methods realistic evaluation

Sheaff

Charles

Mahon

et al. 2015

Health Services and Delivery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, space constraints do not allow me to include the extensive discussions of the methodological approaches used in recent studies of quality and competition (e.g. [38] and [39]).…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

An economic analysis of the limits of market based reforms in the English NHS

Allen

2013

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOver the past three decades, a limited range of market like mechanisms have been introduced into the hierarchically structured English National Health Service (‘NHS’), which is a nationally tax funded, budget limited healthcare system, with access to care for all, producing structures known as a quasi market. Recently, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (‘HSCA’) has been enacted, introducing further market elements. The paper examines the theory and effects of these market mechanisms.MethodsUsing neo-classical economics as a primary theoretical framework, as well as new institutional economics and socio-legal theory, the paper first examines the fundamental elements of markets, comparing these with the operation of authority and resource allocation employed in hierarchical structures. Second, the paper examines the application of market concepts to the delivery of healthcare, drawing out the problems which economic and socio-legal theories predict are likely to be encountered. Third, the paper discusses the research evidence concerning the operation of the quasi market in the English NHS. This evidence is provided by research conducted in the UK which uses economic and socio-legal logic to investigate the operation of the economic aspects of the NHS quasi market. Fourth, the paper provides an analysis of the salient elements of the quasi market regime amended by the HSCA 2012.ResultsIt is not possible to construct a market conforming to classical economic principles in respect of healthcare. Moreover, it is not desirable to do so, as goals which markets cannot deliver (such as fairness of access) are crucial in England. Most of the evidence shows that the quasi market mechanisms used in the English NHS do not appear to be effective either. This finding should be seen in the light of the fact that the operation of these mechanisms has been significantly affected by the national political (i.e. continuingly hierarchical) and budgetary context in which they are operating.ConclusionThe organisational structures of a hierarchy are more appropriate for the delivery of healthcare in the English NHS.

show abstract

“…These studies purport to show an association. Although cited extensively by politicians in support of radical reforms to the English NHS, it remains highly controversial, with critics noting considerable methodological problems with the data, the measure of competition and the outcome used, the plausibility of the findings, and that the findings display the inverse of the authors' interpretation—that outcomes worsened in non-competitive areas15 and the authors have pointed out that “Researchers have little influence over how politicians use their academic work”,16 in particular noting that price competition is associated with worse outcomes 17…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%