Unpacking the evidence on competition and outcomes in the NHS in England

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    5 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    In 2006 the NHS in England adopted a system in which patients were given choices between secondary care providers which were paid fixed prices (so called ‘payment by results’) for providing care. Gaynor et al have suggested that before 2006, hospitals did not compete and that competition after that date led to changes in travel patterns for patients in and around conurbations toward hospitals with both shorter waiting lists and higher clinical quality (according to one measure).1 Furthermore, those hospitals facing more competition (as they measured it) had better clinical quality after this reorganization, leading to the claim that competition saves lives2 and lowers lengths of stay, without any increase in total health expenditure.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages193-194
    Number of pages2
    JournalJournal of Health Services Research & Policy
    Volume17
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 31 Oct 2012

    Fingerprint

    England
    Secondary Care
    Waiting Lists
    Health Expenditures
    Length of Stay

    Keywords

    • economic competition
    • health care reform
    • humans
    • outcome assessment (health care)
    • state medicine

    Cite this

    @article{ceb1015215f94564bd4c5554a60b2820,
    title = "Unpacking the evidence on competition and outcomes in the NHS in England",
    abstract = "In 2006 the NHS in England adopted a system in which patients were given choices between secondary care providers which were paid fixed prices (so called ‘payment by results’) for providing care. Gaynor et al have suggested that before 2006, hospitals did not compete and that competition after that date led to changes in travel patterns for patients in and around conurbations toward hospitals with both shorter waiting lists and higher clinical quality (according to one measure).1 Furthermore, those hospitals facing more competition (as they measured it) had better clinical quality after this reorganization, leading to the claim that competition saves lives2 and lowers lengths of stay, without any increase in total health expenditure.",
    keywords = "economic competition, health care reform, humans, outcome assessment (health care), state medicine",
    author = "Ian Greener",
    year = "2012",
    month = "10",
    day = "31",
    doi = "10.1258/jhsrp.2012.012032",
    language = "English",
    volume = "17",
    pages = "193--194",
    journal = "Journal of Health Services Research & Policy",
    issn = "1355-8196",
    number = "4",

    }

    Unpacking the evidence on competition and outcomes in the NHS in England. / Greener, Ian.

    In: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy , Vol. 17, No. 4, 31.10.2012, p. 193-194.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Unpacking the evidence on competition and outcomes in the NHS in England

    AU - Greener, Ian

    PY - 2012/10/31

    Y1 - 2012/10/31

    N2 - In 2006 the NHS in England adopted a system in which patients were given choices between secondary care providers which were paid fixed prices (so called ‘payment by results’) for providing care. Gaynor et al have suggested that before 2006, hospitals did not compete and that competition after that date led to changes in travel patterns for patients in and around conurbations toward hospitals with both shorter waiting lists and higher clinical quality (according to one measure).1 Furthermore, those hospitals facing more competition (as they measured it) had better clinical quality after this reorganization, leading to the claim that competition saves lives2 and lowers lengths of stay, without any increase in total health expenditure.

    AB - In 2006 the NHS in England adopted a system in which patients were given choices between secondary care providers which were paid fixed prices (so called ‘payment by results’) for providing care. Gaynor et al have suggested that before 2006, hospitals did not compete and that competition after that date led to changes in travel patterns for patients in and around conurbations toward hospitals with both shorter waiting lists and higher clinical quality (according to one measure).1 Furthermore, those hospitals facing more competition (as they measured it) had better clinical quality after this reorganization, leading to the claim that competition saves lives2 and lowers lengths of stay, without any increase in total health expenditure.

    KW - economic competition

    KW - health care reform

    KW - humans

    KW - outcome assessment (health care)

    KW - state medicine

    UR - http://hsr.sagepub.com/content/17/4/193

    U2 - 10.1258/jhsrp.2012.012032

    DO - 10.1258/jhsrp.2012.012032

    M3 - Article

    VL - 17

    SP - 193

    EP - 194

    JO - Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

    T2 - Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

    JF - Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

    SN - 1355-8196

    IS - 4

    ER -