The rise of the regulatory state in health care: a comparative analysis of the Netherlands, England and Italy

Abstract

In a relatively short time, regulation has become a significant and distinct feature of how modern states wish to govern and steer their economy and society. Whereas the former ‘dirigiste’ state used to be closely related to public ownership (e.g. hospitals), planning (volume and capacity planning) and centralised administration (e.g. fixed prices and budgets), the new regulatory state relies mainly on the instrument of regulation to achieve its objectives. In this paper, we wish to relate the rise of the ‘regulatory state’ to the path-dependent trajectories and institutional legacies of discrete European health-care systems. For this purpose, we compared the Dutch corporatist social health insurance system, the strongly centralised National Health Service (NHS) of England and federal regionalised NHS system of Italy. Comparing these three different health-care systems suggests that it is indeed possible to identify a general trend towards the rise of the regulatory state in health care in the last two decades. However, although the three countries examined in this paper face similar problems of multilevel governance of networks of third-party payers and providers, each system also gives rise to its own distinct regulatory challenges.

A literature review of the Dutch debate on the nurse practitioner role: efficiency vs. professional development

“…In the past 20 years, the Dutch Government aimed to strengthen the role of market elements in health care. Regulations were issued to promote price and quality competition, and on the other hand to safeguard equity and solidarity (Helderman et al 2012). This ambiguous task within a semi-competitive context may explain why insurance companies might have been reluctant to mingle into the debate on NPs.…”

Second Best Governance? Governments and Governance in the Imperfect World of Health Care Delivery in China, India and Thailand in Comparative Perspective

“…While it is possible to combine the best of all three arrangements, reconciling their divergent imperatives is not easy (Meuleman 2008). The nascent and still small literature on health care governance (Helderman et al 2012;Brinkerhoff and Bossert 2013;Ramesh et al 2013) points to the difficulties in governing a sector in which multiple governance failures co-exist and undermines the assumption that networks or markets are more effective than planned efforts carried out by a single organization in a hierarchical manner in delivering services. Yet reformers and commentators continue to make a case for market governance, regulated or subsidized, on the grounds of the existence of pervasive government failures, or for network governance on the grounds that it is best suited for addressing both market and government failures that afflict the sector.…”

The financial crisis and health care systems in Europe: universal care under threat? Trends in health sector reforms in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain

“…Market-oriented health reforms in recent decades have posed new challenges for state regulation and have been accompanied by the creation of specific agencies for the task 30 . Regulation of health protection and the health system in the three countries occurs in different ways, in addition to the respective national legislative processes.…”