IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v42y1996i7p1021-1025.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationing health care: Views from general practice

Author

Listed:
  • Ayres, Philip J.

Abstract

General practitioners (GPs) in the United Kingdom are central to the commissioning of health care services. A qualitative study of their views was therefore designed, which incorporated an in-depth (open) interview technique carried out on a 20% sample of all GPs (n = 100) in one United Kingdom Health District. The data from these interviews indicated that GPs were aware of, but had mixed feelings about the need for rationing. They expressed disquiet about the dilemma faced in rationing health care at the time of the consultation and readily associated issues of cost in their practice with rationing. Some of the currently adopted methods of rationing (waiting lists, co-payments and ability to pay) were commented upon. The respondents also made suggestions on how rationing could be carried out, which included: maximizing efficiency to reduce the need for rationing; using a third party committee to make rationing decisions, with a membership of clinicians, managers, and possibly public representatives, and; being explicit about how rationing is done. Fundholding brought rationing decisions to the fore, and worried most who discussed it in the context of rationing. The conclusion of this paper is that current implicit rationing policies in the National Health Service are flawed as they assume that GPs will ration health care at the time of the consultation. The involvement of GPs in the rationing process is important (particularly given the present expansion of GP fundholding), so there is a need for an alternative to the present system.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayres, Philip J., 1996. "Rationing health care: Views from general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 1021-1025, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:42:y:1996:i:7:p:1021-1025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00213-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hilke Brockmann, 2000. "Why is health treatment for the elderly less expensive than for the rest of the population? Health care rationing in Germany," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2000-001, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    2. Benedicte Carlsen & Jo Thori Lind & Karine Nyborg, 2020. "Why physicians are lousy gatekeepers: Sicklisting decisions when patients have private information on symptoms," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(7), pages 778-789, July.
    3. Jane Robertson & Emily J Walkom & David A Henry, 2011. "Health Systems and Sustainability: Doctors and Consumers Differ on Threats and Solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-9, April.
    4. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    5. Carlsen, Benedicte & Nyborg, Karine, 2017. "Healer or Gatekeeper? Physicians' Role Conflict When Symptoms Are Non-Verifiable," IZA Discussion Papers 10735, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Whynes, David K. & Ennew, Christine T. & Feighan, Teresa, 1999. "Entrepreneurial attitudes of primary health care physicians in the United Kingdom," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 331-347, March.
    7. Carlsen, Benedicte & Nyborg, Karine, 2009. "The Gate is Open: Primary Care Physicians as Social Security Gatekeepers," Memorandum 07/2009, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    8. Owen-Smith, Amanda & Donovan, Jenny & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "How clinical rationing works in practice: A case study of morbid obesity surgery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 288-295.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:42:y:1996:i:7:p:1021-1025. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.