IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v35y2013i4p634-660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vulnerability of Primary Care Organizations to the National Health Service Reform in England

Author

Listed:
  • José Iparraguirre
  • Tom Gentry
  • Diego Peña

Abstract

We study how ready or vulnerable each Primary Care Organization (PCO) in England was in 2010 to the National Health Service reforms announced in the Government white paper Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS, later enacted by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We define vulnerability as a combination of latent variables and present a novel methodological approach to measuring organizational and wider impacts of health policy reforms. Areas with higher concentrations of older people were not correlated with vulnerability except where there was also deprivation. This contrasts with wide-spread qualitative and quantitative evidence of sub-optimal care of older people within the health service. This suggests there may be an over-reliance on using activity, which was proportionately higher in the least vulnerable areas, to determine funding and quality markers rather than outcomes. A risk of the reform process could be a negative impact on deprived areas which appear to be financially less secure and more likely to have long-established health inequalities. Copyright 2013, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • José Iparraguirre & Tom Gentry & Diego Peña, 2013. "Vulnerability of Primary Care Organizations to the National Health Service Reform in England," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 634-660.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:35:y:2013:i:4:p:634-660
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppt021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:35:y:2013:i:4:p:634-660. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.