Is the corporate transformation of hospitals creating a new hybrid health care space? A case study of the impact of co-location of public and private hospitals in Australia
A common feature of health reforms in western nations has been the transformation or (re)construction of health and health care as both a commodity and product. In the hospital sector, this transformation has become increasingly evident in the growth of for-profit involvement in service delivery. Investor-owned hospitals are now prominent providers of hospital care in Australia. This paper examines the changing nature of health care space through the changing portrayal and meaning of hospitals as represented by and encoded in the built environment. Public hospitals once occupied 'pride of place'. In contrast, up to the early 1980s, the private sector was seen as a cottage industry. However, increased levels of state subsidisation and government incentives and pro-market policies, combined with market-based opportunities for profit generation, have seen the emergence of large private hospital chains with a new corporate image to hospital care and the blurring of 'public' and 'private'. A significant factor in the reconstruction of hospital space in Australia has been the co-location of private and public hospitals. Co-location is a popular strategy proffered by State governments and one that has been quickly acted on by corporate providers. Using Mayne Health Ltd, Australia's largest for-profit hospital chain, and four specific case studies, this paper explores four variants of co-location. Each of these examples represent a different public and private hospital space. The growth of for-profit hospital chains signifies a new phase in the delivery of health care in Australia but also importantly the creation of a new hybridised 'health care' space. This space is neither private nor public but a reflection of the economic, political and social processes underlying this transformation.
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): 58 (2004)
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:58:y:2004:i:2:p:427-444. 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.