This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Fairness in Primary Care Procurement Measures of Under-Doctoredness: Sensitivity Analysis and Trends

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Arne Hole (National Primary Care Research & Development Centre, Centre for Health Economics, University of York)
Giorgia Marini (Centre for Health Economics, University of York)
Maria Goddard (Centre for Health Economics, University of York)
Hugh Gravelle (National Primary Care Research & Development Centre, Centre for Health Economics, University of York)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The White Paper Our Health, Our Care, Our Say noted concerns about geographical equity of access to GPs (Department of Health, 2006, page 63), listed the 30 PCTs with the lowest number of GPs per head of need adjusted population, and set out policy initiatives to attract additional providers of general practice services to these PCTs. We were asked to evaluate the impact of these policies on the bottom 30 PCTs and will report in Autumn 2010. In this report we consider a number of related measurement issues which are relevant for consideration of policy on equality of access to general practice. Our main conclusion is that whilst the set of worst provided PCTs varies, sometimes substantially, with the choice of GP supply measure, need adjustment, and population base, the set of 30 identified by the White Paper contains a core of around 10 PCTs which are amongst the worst provided on most possible alternative definitions. The White Paper set also contains a larger fringe group which are in the bottom 30 on some definitions, particularly when the White Paper definition of GPs is used, but which also often fall outside the worst provided bottom 30. There is no obviously right set of definitions of GPs, need adjustments, and populations which can be implemented with available data. Judgements are required and those underlying the White Paper seem not unreasonable. However, we suggest that consideration be given to broadening the definition of the general practice staff from GPs to include practice nurses and possibly non-clinical staff as well.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pdf/rp35.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function: First version, 2008
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Centre for Health Economics, University of York in its series Working Papers with number 035cherp.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length: 39 pages
Date of creation: Feb 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:35cherp

Contact details of provider:
Postal: York Y010 5DD
Phone: (01904) 321401
Email:
Web page: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Frances Sharp).

Related research
Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? The RePEc project started in 1997. Its precursor, NetEc, dates back to 1993.

This page was last updated on 2008-9-4.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.