Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T08:08:56.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

User choice in European health systems: towards a systematic framework for analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2010

Florian P. Kreisz  and
Christian Gericke
Florian P. Kreisz
Affiliation:
LSE Health and Social Care, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
Christian Gericke*
Affiliation:
Chair in Public Health Policy, University of Adelaide, Australia
*
Correspondence to: Christian Gericke, Chair in Public Health Policy, University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney Street, MDP 207, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article proposes a systematic framework for analysis of the increasingly popular concept of user choice in European health systems. The development of such a framework is exemplified using one category of potential choice: the choice of health service provider. In the first part, the paper summarises the conceptual background of the user choice debate. Subsequently, the paper theoretically analyses the concept of user choice alongside a stringent set of standard dimensions embracing technical, administrative and allocative efficiency, as well as equity in access and finance. Reference to available evidence is made where applicable. The employed dimensions are critically discussed and finally mapped against the identified determinants within a systematic matrix framework for analysis. Furthermore, the paper underlines that user choice is by no means a panacea but rather a highly complex and ambiguous political strategy. Extended choice in some sectors and levels of health systems may lead to inefficiencies and may therefore lead to loss of benefits, including choice, for individuals and society.

Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 13 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appleby, J., Harrison, A.Devlin, N. (2003), What is the Real Cost of More Patient Choice?, London, UK: King’s Fund.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. (1985), ‘The Economics of Agency’, in J. W. Pratt and R. J. Zeckhauser (eds), Principles and Agents: The Structure of Business, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press: 37–61.Google Scholar
Barkema, H. G. (1995), ‘Do top managers work harder when they are monitored?’, Kyklos, 48(1): 19–42.Google Scholar
Barr, N. (2004), Economics of the Welfare State, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
Bernstam, E. V., Shelton, D. M., Walji, M.Meric-Bernstam, F. (2005), ‘Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use?’, International Journal of Medical Information, 74(1): 13–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, T. (2003), ‘We must not waste this precious period of power’, Speech given at South Camden Community College, 23 January.Google Scholar
Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C., IIFacer, R. I. (2000), ‘Individual conceptions of public service motivation’, Public Administration Review, 60(3): 254–264.Google Scholar
Burge, P., Devlin, N., Appleby, J., Rohr, C.Grant, J. (2005), London Patient Choice Project Evaluation – A Model of Patients’ Choices of Hospital from Stated and Revealed Preference Choice Data, Cambridge, UK: The RAND Corporation Europe.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, R. (2004), ‘Disease management programs in Germany’s statutory health insurance system’, Health Affairs, 23(3): 56–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chernichovsky, D.van de Ven, W. P. (2003), ‘Risk adjustment in Europe’, Health Policy, 65(1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulter, A. (2002a), The Autonomous Patient, London: Nuffield Trust.Google Scholar
Coulter, A. (2002b), ‘Involving patients: representation or representativeness?’, Health Expectations, 5(1): 1.Google ScholarPubMed
Coulter, A. (2004), ‘Equity and choice: the lesson from elective surgery’, Patient Centred Care, 2(2): 14–15.Google Scholar
Coulter, A. (2006), ‘Can patients assess the quality of health care?’, British Medical Journal, 333: 1–2.Google Scholar
Coulter, A., Nye, R.Pollard, S. (2005), What Patients Really Want – An Analysis of NHS Performance Against Patient-Defined Success Measures, London: Populus.Google Scholar
Croxson, B., Propper, C.Perkins, A. (2001), ‘Do doctors respond to financial incentives? UK family doctors and the GP fundholder scheme’, Journal of Public Economics, 79(2): 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, D., Jacobs, R., Martin, S., Smith, P. (2004), ‘Evaluation of the London Patient Choice Project: System Wide Impacts. Fifth Interim Report, 75 pp.’, A Report for the Centre for Health Economics, Department of Economics, University of York, York.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2002), Reforming NHS Financial Flows: Introducing Payment by Results, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Dixon, A.Le Grand, J. (2006), ‘Is greater patient choice consistent with equity? The case of the English NHS’, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 11(3): 162–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donaldson, C.Gerard, K. (1993), Economics of Health Care Financing: The Visible Hand, London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellins, J.Coulter, A. (2005), How Engaged are People in Their Health Care? Findings of a National Telephone Survey, London: Health Foundation.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. P.McGuire, T. G. (1996), ‘Hospital response to prospective payment: moral hazard, selection, and practice-style effects’, Journal of Health Economics, 15(3): 257–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enthoven, A. C.Tollen, L. A. (2005), ‘Competition in health care: it takes systems to pursue quality and efficiency’, Health Affairs, 24: w420–w433.Google Scholar
Fotaki, M. (1999), ‘The impact of market oriented reforms on choice and information: a case study of cataract surgery in outer London and Stockholm’, Social Science and Medicine, 48: 1415–1432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M.Friedman, R. (1980), Free to Choose, London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S. (1997), ‘From the price to the crowding out effect’, Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 133: 325–350.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S. (2000), Not Just For the Money. An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Gosden, T., Forland, F., Kristiansen, I. S., Sutton, M., Leese, B., Giuffrida, A., Sergison, M.Pedersen, L. (2001), ‘Impact of payment method on behaviour of primary care physicians: a systematic review’, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 6(1): 44–55.Google Scholar
Grabka, M. M., Schreyögg, J., Busse, R. (2005), ‘Die Einführung der Praxisgebühr und ihre Wirkung auf die Zahl der Arztkontakte und die Kontaktfrequenz – eine empirische Analyse’, Discussion Paper 506, Berlin: German Institute for Economic Research.Google Scholar
Hart, J. T. (1971), ‘The inverse care law’, Lancet, i: 405–412.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1960), The Constitution of Liberty, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1970), Exit, Voice and Loyalty – Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hsiao, W. C. (2001), ‘Behind the ideology and theory: what is the empirical evidence for medical savings accounts?’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26(4): 733–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, P. (1997), The Economics of Health and Health Care, Maryland: Aspen Books.Google Scholar
Klein, R. (1980), ‘Models of man and models of policy: reflections on exit, voice and loyalty ten years later’, Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly/Health and Society, 58(3): 417–429.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (1991), ‘Quasi-markets and social policy’, Economic Journal, 101(405): 1256–1267.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (1997), ‘Knights, knaves or pawns? Human behaviour and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 26(2): 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J. (1999), ‘Competition, co-operation or control – tales from the British National Health Service’, Health Affairs, 18(3): 27–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Grand, J. (2003), Motivation, Agency and Public Policy – Of Knights & Knaves, Queens & Pawns, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2006), The Blair Legacy? Choice and Competition in Public Services. Transcript of Public Lecture. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
Matsaganis, M.Glennester, H. (1994), ‘The threat of “cream skimming” in the post-reform NHS’, Journal of Health Economics, 13(1): 31–60.Google Scholar
McGuire, A., Fenn, P.Mayhew, K. (1989), ‘The economics of health care’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 5: 1–20.Google Scholar
Milburn, A. (2002), ‘Diversity and Choice within the NHS’, Speech to NHS Confederation Annual Conference, Harrogate, UK, 24 May.Google Scholar
Mossialos, E., Dixon, A., Figueras, J.Kutzin, J. (eds) (2003), Funding Health Care: Options for Europe, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
NHS Connecting for Health (2006), http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/ [25 August 2006].Google Scholar
Oliver, A. J. (1999), Risk Adjusting Health Care Resource Allocations, London: Office of Health Economics.Google Scholar
Palmer, S.Torgerson, D. J. (1999), ‘Economics notes: definitions of efficiency’, British Medical Journal, 318: 1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pauly, M. V. (2004), ‘Competition in medical services and the quality of care: concepts and history’, International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, 4: 113–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Propper, C., Wilson, D., Burgess, S. (2005), ‘Extending Choice In English Health Care: The implications of the economic evidence’, CMPO Working Paper Series no. 05/133. Bristol: University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Rice, T. (1998), The Economics of Health Reconsidered, Chicago: Health Administrative Press.Google Scholar
Rice, T. (2001), ‘Should Consumer Choice be Encouraged in Health Care?’, in J. Davis (ed.), The Social Economics of Health Care, London: Routledge: 9–39.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. (2003), ‘User Charges for Health Care’, in E. Mossialos, A. Dixon, J. Figueras and J. Kutzin (eds), Funding Health Care: Options for Europe, Buckingham: Open University Press: 161–183.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. (1938), ‘Note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour’, Economica, 5(17): 61–71, New Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schut, S. T., Greß, S.Wasem, J. (2003), ‘Consumer price sensitivity and social health insurer choice in Germany and the Netherlands’, International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, 3: 117–138.Google Scholar
Shepperd, S., Charnock, D.Gann, B. (1999), ‘Helping patients access high quality health information’, British Medical Journal, 319: 764–766.Google Scholar
6, P. (2003), ‘Giving consumers of British Public Services more choice: what can be learned from recent history?’, Journal of Social Policy, 32(2): 239–270.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Thomson, S.Dixon, A. (2004), ‘Choices in health care: the European experience’, Euro Observer, 6(4): 1–4.Google Scholar
Thomson, S.Dixon, A. (2006), ‘Choices in health care: the European experience’, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 11(3): 167–171.Google Scholar
Thorlby, R. (2006), Where the Patient was King? A Study of Patient Choice and its Effect on Five Specialist HIV Units in London, London, UK: King’s Fund.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. (1971), The Gift Relationship, London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Xavier, A. (2003), ‘Hospital competition, GP fundholders and waiting times in the UK internal market: the case of elective surgery’, International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, 3: 25–51.Google Scholar