« Liviu Librescu | Main | Doctors Training »
April 20, 2007
Dr. Rant Saves the NHS
Or at least that's what he wants to do.
I think we need to realise that market mechanisms are anathema to any health service, and increase transaction costs rather than health gain.
Ooops, fallen at the first fence there. Better luck next time, eh?
April 20, 2007 in Health Care | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d83453b95e69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dr. Rant Saves the NHS:
Comments
Too true, and what does he have against Patsy Kensit?
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | Apr 20, 2007 7:32:31 PM
very easy to write off in one line Tim, however Dr Rant is right.
It is stupid to use state funds to create an internal market of healthcare, it is better to simply spend the tax payer cash in a sensible rationed manner.
It is also stupid to fund private health corporations directly with state funds, it's expensive and inefficient.
That's not to say private sector involvement is all bad, it's just the way that you do it that matter.
A much better idea is to have a state funded rationed service for all with NO market, and to assist people who go private by paying for a percentage of their treatment; that way the private sector can genuinely help out the public sector.
The current system we have has the private sector starving the public sector of funds, it simply doesn't work having an internal market
I'm surprised the last 20 odd years of the failings of the internal market haven't convinced you.
Posted by: b | Apr 23, 2007 12:54:27 PM
Tim, We thought about this question, and we'll think about it some more after your feedback. For now Dr Rant stands by the view that markets aren't likely to sort out healthcare.
He'll take a post to make our case for this proposition.
Do you fancy making the case for why a market system would sort out the NHS?
I think we'll need to distinguish between the gargoyle of a market being introduced into NHS under ideas such as "purchaser provider split" and "payment by results" (fixed tariff centrally imposed) and "practice based commissioning (We get the GPs to beggar the hospitals) and a proper free market.
We'll see how the debate comes out between us.
Posted by: Dr Blue | Apr 23, 2007 1:31:25 PM
Ooops, fallen at the first fence there. Better luck next time, eh?
It's always nice to have such well considered and authoratitive 'peer review'.
Market based dogma is no more likely succeed than socialist dogma, because those that are wedded to these ideals are deaf to discussion. (Tim - did you switch off as soon as you read someone question 'markets'.)
Perhaps you'd like to consider what a market mechanism is?
We think there should either be 'no market', or a 'market'.
A 'Market mechanism' is neither.
This isn't pedantry, because our 'manifesto' is a response to the situation that New Labour have created, not a utopian ideal.
By seeking to manage demand and expectation we can reduce costs and improve outcomes without resorting to gaming the statistics.
We wouldn't want to fall into the trap of blindly believing that 'The outcomes for grass greenness are better on the French and US sides' either would we?
Mustard
Posted by: Dr Mustard | Apr 23, 2007 2:04:48 PM
