A shift in the historical trajectory of medical dominance: the case of Medibank and the Australian doctors' lobby
During the twentieth century, episodes of major health policy reform were relatively rare. These rare episodes were pivotal 'critical junctures' in determining the paths taken by modern health systems and in creating a unique health policy arena. A pivotal 'turning point' in Australia came in the form of national health insurance. Introduced in the early 1970s, Medibank (universal, compulsory national health insurance) was the first significant structural health policy change in Australia during the twentieth century. When Medibank health insurance proposals were presented in Australia, political struggles erupted. Government leaders in Australia faced fierce opposition from key players within the health policy arena. Prior to this turning point, one of the key health policy players--the Australian Medical Association (AMA)--had developed a corporate partnership with the non-Labor government. When the Medibank proposal emerged, power structures in the health policy arena were re-aligned. The political role of the AMA shifted from a corporate partner to a pressure group. Examining the political processes surrounding this unique episode of major health policy change helps to illuminate the dual and dynamic nature of the doctors' lobby. Our study aims to demonstrate empirically Day and Klein's proposition that the doctors' lobby operates as a pressure group, rather than as a corporate-style partner, during periods of structural reform in health care [Political Studies, 40 (1992) 462]. This case study of the doctors' lobby during Medibank negotiations represents a rare break in the tradition of ultimate medical professional veto power in health policy decision-making and provides empirical evidence that challenges a widely held perception about an inevitable historical path of medical dominance.
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): 57 (2003)
Issue (Month): 2 (July)
|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:57:y:2003:i:2:p:343-353. 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.