Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The increased private provision of publicly funded health and social care over the last 75 years has been one of the most contentious topics in UK public policy. In the last decades, health and social care policies in England have consistently promoted the outsourcing of public services to private for‐profit and non‐profit companies with the assumption that private sector involvement will reduce costs and improve service quality and access. However, it is not clear why outsourcing often fails to improve quality of care, and which of the underlying assumptions behind marketising care are not supported by research. This article provides an analysis of key policy and regulatory documents preceding or accompanying outsourcing policies in England (e.g., policy document relating to the 2012 and 2022 Health and Social Care Acts and the 2014 Care Act), and peer‐reviewed research on the impact of outsourcing within the NHS, adult's social care, and children's social care. We find that more regulation and market oversight appear to be associated with less poor outcomes and slower growth of for‐profit provision. However, evidence on the NHS suggests that marketisation does not seem to achieve the intended objectives of outsourcing, even when accompanied with heavy regulation and oversight. Our analysis suggests that there is little evidence to show that the profit motive can be successfully tamed by public commissioners. This article concludes with how policymakers should address, or readdress, the underlying assumptions behind the outsourcing of care services.
The increased private provision of publicly funded health and social care over the last 75 years has been one of the most contentious topics in UK public policy. In the last decades, health and social care policies in England have consistently promoted the outsourcing of public services to private for‐profit and non‐profit companies with the assumption that private sector involvement will reduce costs and improve service quality and access. However, it is not clear why outsourcing often fails to improve quality of care, and which of the underlying assumptions behind marketising care are not supported by research. This article provides an analysis of key policy and regulatory documents preceding or accompanying outsourcing policies in England (e.g., policy document relating to the 2012 and 2022 Health and Social Care Acts and the 2014 Care Act), and peer‐reviewed research on the impact of outsourcing within the NHS, adult's social care, and children's social care. We find that more regulation and market oversight appear to be associated with less poor outcomes and slower growth of for‐profit provision. However, evidence on the NHS suggests that marketisation does not seem to achieve the intended objectives of outsourcing, even when accompanied with heavy regulation and oversight. Our analysis suggests that there is little evidence to show that the profit motive can be successfully tamed by public commissioners. This article concludes with how policymakers should address, or readdress, the underlying assumptions behind the outsourcing of care services.
ObjectivesTo understand the relationship between increasing privatisation of the NHS and austerity cuts to public funding.DesignLongitudinal analysis.Setting170 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England between 2013 and 2020.InterventionThe UK austerity programme, spearheaded by the conservative-led governments of the 2010s, leveraged the 2008 financial crisis to roll-back spending to local government and social security spending. They also restricted the rate of growth in NHS spending—but cuts varied for different areas, often impacting deprived areas hardest.Main outcomeFor-profit outsourcing by NHS commissioners. After the implementation of the 2012 Health and Social Care act commissioners were encouraged and obliged to open contracts to the private sector. The uptake of for-profit outsourcing varied massively. Some CCGs contracted out almost half of their activity, and others almost none.ResultsWe calculate the size of austerity across all CCGs. The financial restrictions meant that commissioners had, on average, £21.2 m more debt by 2021 than in 2014 in real terms. We find that there is a null and very small effect of changes to local NHS funding on for-profit outsourcing. A decrease in £100 per capita of NHS funding corresponds in a decrease in 0.441 percentage points (95% CI −0.240 to 1.121) of for-profit expenditure. We also find that local changes to public expenditure on the NHS, local government and social security do not confound the relationship between for-profit outsourcing and treatable mortality rates.ConclusionsNHS privatisation at the local level does not appear to be a direct response to or result of austerity. That does not mean that it is unproblematic. Rather than being confounded by funding levels, the deteriorating health outcomes associated with privatisation should be considered as a distinct concern to the disastrous health effects of austerity policies.
Health inequalities are differences in health between groups in society. Despite them being preventable they persist on a grand scale. At the beginning of 2024, the Institute of Health Equity revealed in their report titled: Health Inequalities, Lives Cut Short, that health inequalities caused 1 million early deaths in England over the past decade. While the number of studies on the prevalence of health inequalities in the UK has burgeoned, limited emphasis has been given to exploring the factors contributing to these (widening) health inequalities. In this commentary article I will describe how the Government’s relentless pursuit of economic growth and their failure to implement the necessary regulatory policies to mitigate against the insecurity and health effects neoliberal free market capitalism (referred to as capitalism herein) causes in pursuit of innovation, productivity and growth (economic dynamism) is one key driver underpinning this social injustice. I contend that if the priority really is to tackle health inequalities and ensure health for all then there is an imperative need to move beyond regulation alone to mitigate the worst effects of capitalist production; the goal of the economy has to change to fully restore the balance between economic growth and public health.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.