2012
DOI: 10.2190/hs.42.1l
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In Defiance of the Evidence: Conservatives Threaten to “Reform” Away England's National Health Service

Abstract: David Cameron's Conservative-led coalition government is pressing ahead with a highly controversial bill to "reform" the National Health Service (NHS), abolishing existing management structures, opening up provider services to private competition from "any qualified provider", and establishing a competitive market system in place of planning. The proposals fragment the structures and run counter to the founding principles of the NHS, which in 1948 transcended the limitations of markets, delivering health care … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While the Act's supporters argue that competition will provide innovation, better management, and improved quality (Le Grand, 2013), its critics argue that it will exacerbate health inequalities (Hunter, 2013) and service rationing (Lister, 2012), end comprehensive public-sector health service provision (Pollock and Price, 2011), and worsen democratic accountability (Davies, 2013). Peedell (2011) shows that the Act's objectives fit most commonly accepted definitions of privatisation, and Moody goes as far as to say that, in the future, "there will be no fully state-owned providers" (2011: 428-429).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the Act's supporters argue that competition will provide innovation, better management, and improved quality (Le Grand, 2013), its critics argue that it will exacerbate health inequalities (Hunter, 2013) and service rationing (Lister, 2012), end comprehensive public-sector health service provision (Pollock and Price, 2011), and worsen democratic accountability (Davies, 2013). Peedell (2011) shows that the Act's objectives fit most commonly accepted definitions of privatisation, and Moody goes as far as to say that, in the future, "there will be no fully state-owned providers" (2011: 428-429).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This alternative point of view at that time was that HSCA2012 would privatise and eventually put pay to the NHS as we know it (Pollock 2011, Pollock 2012). The acts' critics argue that HSCA2012 has been responsible for deepening health inequalities (Hunter 2011), has led to rationing of services (Lister 2012) Many commentators trace any deficiencies in hospital care in England back to HSCA2012. A lot has been said and written about the organisational and structural changes brought about by the HSCA2012 and participation of the private sector in the delivery of secondary and tertiary services (Speed 2013, Marshall 2014.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lister () writes that Lansley's plans require all NHS trusts to become autonomous FTs, with a longer‐term goal of getting FTs ‘off the NHS balance sheet’, floating them off as non‐profit ‘social enterprises’ (cell 3). He continues that ‘this experimental policy would, if carried through, effectively privatize virtually all the provision of health services in England by 2014 (Lister : 146).…”
Section: Period 4: Conservative/liberal Democrat Coalition (2010–15)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, they pointed to the potential for key decisions such as rationing to be handed over to private sector management consultancies such as McKinsey and United Health (Lister ; Reynolds et al . ).…”
Section: Period 4: Conservative/liberal Democrat Coalition (2010–15)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation