Rationing health care: Views from general practice
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 42 (1996)
Issue (Month): 7 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.