A socio-legal and economic analysis of contracting in the NHS internal market using a case study of contracting for district nursing
The introduction of an internal market in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom necessitated the use of contracts between purchasers and providers. Little thought was given to the nature of these contracts by policy makers, who appeared to assume that the contracts could conform to the classical, complete model. This paper uses socio-legal and economic theories of contract (which provide an alternative model of relational contracts, in contrast to classical contracts) to explore how realistic that assumption was. An analysis of the institutional context in which the contracts were made is provided, including a legal analysis of the relevant legislation. Contracting by health authorities and GP fundholders is examined, using the results of a recent case study of contracting for district nursing services carried out in a health authority in Greater London. The results show that classical contracting is an inappropriate model for NHS contracts, but that relational contracting is not an entirely appropriate model either. Contracting was found to have increased the accountability of providers in respect of some financial matters, but not in respect of the quality of district nursing services. There are negative implications for the use of contracting in publicly financed health services--hierarchies may be more efficient (as lower transaction costs can be incurred) and possibly more effective in improving quality of care.
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): 54 (2002)
Issue (Month): 2 (January)
|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:54:y:2002:i:2:p:255-266. 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.