Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:22:09.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The English market model is not fit for export

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Morris Bernadt
Morris Bernadt*
Affiliation:
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Commissioning of health services has become an intensely political issue in the UK and there is no reason to believe that the conflicts that have arisen domestically would not be mirrored overseas. A key ideological issue in the UK concerns the relative merits of public and private provision of services. In their guest editorial in this issue, ‘Governance, choice and the global market for mental health’, Sugarman & Kakabadse take a particular ideological stance: they write on the one hand of commercial-style efficiency and on the other of monopoly state provision risking inefficiency and ineffectiveness. This perspective is addressed here.

Type
Special Paper
Information
International Psychiatry , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , August 2011 , pp. 55 - 56
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits noncommercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists 2011

References

Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (2011) Academy briefing statement to NHS Bill 2011. At http://www.aomrc.org.uk/component/content/article/38-general-news/213-health-and-social-care-bill-2011.html (accessed May 2011).Google Scholar
Department of Health (2010) Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce. Department of Health.Google Scholar
Dunbar-Rees, R. & McGough, R. (2011) Challenges of EU competition law for general practice commissioning. BMJ, 342, d2071.Google Scholar
Fleming, F. (2011) The bonus myth. New Scientist, 9 April, pp. 40–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ham, C., Dixon, J. & Chantler, C. (2011) Clinically integrated systems: the future of NHS reform in England? BMJ, 342, 740–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House of Commons Health Committee (2010) Commissioning. Fourth Report of Sessions 2009–2010. HC 268-1. House of Commons.Google Scholar
Leys, C. & Player, S. (2011) The Plot Against the NHS. Merlin Press.Google Scholar
Health Policy Network (1996) Health Care – Private Corporations or Public Service? The Americanisation of the NHS. NHS Consultants' Association.Google Scholar
Pollock, A. (2004) NHS plc. The Privatisation of Our Health Care. Verso.Google Scholar
Roland, M. & Rosen, R. (2011) English NHS embarks on controversial and risky market-style reforms in health care. New England Journal of Medicine, 364, 1360–1365.Google Scholar
Royal College of Psychiatrists (2011) Health and Social Care Bill 2011. Royal College of Psychiatrists. Second reading briefing. House of Commons.Google Scholar
At http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/policy/parliamentandpublicaffairs/neilspages/healthandsocialcarebill.aspx (accessed May 2011).Google Scholar
Social and Health Care Workforce Group (2002) Independent Sector Workforce Survey 2001. Provisional Report. Employers' Organisation.Google Scholar
Woolhandler, S. & Himmelstein, D. (2004) The high costs of for-profit care. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170, 184–185.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.