Resource Allocation for Equity in the British National Health Service, 1948–89: An Advocacy Coalition Analysis of the RAWP
Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is a universal, single-payer health system in which the central state has been instrumental in ensuring equity. This article investigates why from the 1970s a policy to achieve equal access for equal need was implemented. Despite the founding principle th...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of health politics, policy and law policy and law, 2018-02, Vol.43 (1), p.69-108 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 108 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 69 |
container_title | Journal of health politics, policy and law |
container_volume | 43 |
creator | Gorsky, Martin Millward, Gareth |
description | Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is a universal, single-payer health system in which the central state has been instrumental in ensuring equity. This article investigates why from the 1970s a policy to achieve equal access for equal need was implemented. Despite the founding principle that the NHS should “universalize the best,” this was a controversial policy goal, implying substantial redistribution from London and the South and threatening established medical, political, and bureaucratic interests. Our conceptual approach draws on the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), which foregrounds the influence of research and ideas in the policy process. We first outline the spatial inequities that the NHS inherited, the work of the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP), and its new redistributive formula. We then introduce the ACF approach, analyzing the RAWP's prehistory and formation in advocacy coalition terms, focusing particularly on the rise of health economics. Our explanation emphasizes the consensual commitment to equity, which relegated conflict to more technical questions of application. The “buy-in” of midlevel bureaucrats was central to the RAWP's successful alignment of equity with allocative efficiency. We contrast this with the failure of advocacy for equity of health outcomes: here consensus over core beliefs and technical solutions proved elusive. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1215/03616878-4249814 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6312698</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2021292968</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c501t-bd909b378f5d217463f23de88bb0ca73a116f3718833db946131f041890cf2ce3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kctu1DAUhi1ERYfCnhWyxIYFAR8749gsKoVRaStVgAqIpeU4DuPiiad2MtJILHgH3rBPgufScpHwxovznc_n-EfoCZCXQGH6ijAOXFSiKGkpBZT30ASmtCpA0uo-mmzKxaZ-iB6mdEXyYcAfoEMqZEUJyAn6fmlTGKOxuPY-GD240OMuRHxyPbphjV2Ph7nFb6IbXJrjd1tAe3xmtR_m-KONK2fsCwyyFDc_fgr5Gtc9rttVdpk1ngXt3dZZ5651cgmHbmu8rL98eIQOOu2Tfby_j9DntyefZmfFxfvT81l9UZgpgaFoWklkwyrRTVsKVclZR1lrhWgaYnTFNADvWAVCMNY2suTAoCMlCElMR41lR-h4512OzcK2xvZD1F4to1vouFZBO_V3pXdz9TWsFGdAuRRZ8HwviOF6tGlQC5eM9V73NoxJ5e15jiDjGX32D3qV_zcvnxQlFKikkm-EZEeZGFKKtrsbBojaRKtuo1X7aHPL0z-XuGu4zTIDbAe04zc7LqNN6ffb_9X-Apmkrd8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2021292968</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Resource Allocation for Equity in the British National Health Service, 1948–89: An Advocacy Coalition Analysis of the RAWP</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>EBSCOhost Political Science Complete</source><creator>Gorsky, Martin ; Millward, Gareth</creator><creatorcontrib>Gorsky, Martin ; Millward, Gareth</creatorcontrib><description>Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is a universal, single-payer health system in which the central state has been instrumental in ensuring equity. This article investigates why from the 1970s a policy to achieve equal access for equal need was implemented. Despite the founding principle that the NHS should “universalize the best,” this was a controversial policy goal, implying substantial redistribution from London and the South and threatening established medical, political, and bureaucratic interests. Our conceptual approach draws on the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), which foregrounds the influence of research and ideas in the policy process. We first outline the spatial inequities that the NHS inherited, the work of the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP), and its new redistributive formula. We then introduce the ACF approach, analyzing the RAWP's prehistory and formation in advocacy coalition terms, focusing particularly on the rise of health economics. Our explanation emphasizes the consensual commitment to equity, which relegated conflict to more technical questions of application. The “buy-in” of midlevel bureaucrats was central to the RAWP's successful alignment of equity with allocative efficiency. We contrast this with the failure of advocacy for equity of health outcomes: here consensus over core beliefs and technical solutions proved elusive.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-6878</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-1927</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1215/03616878-4249814</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28972019</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Duke University Press</publisher><subject>Access ; Advocacy ; Allocative efficiency ; Beliefs ; Bureaucracy ; Bureaucrats ; Equity ; Founding ; Health ; Health behavior ; Health care policy ; Health economics ; Health Equity ; Health problems ; Health services ; Health status ; Humans ; Inequality ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health ; Policy Making ; Political parties ; Political Science ; Politics ; Prehistoric era ; Public Health and Health Policy ; Public Policy ; Redistribution ; Resource Allocation ; State Medicine - organization & administration ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Journal of health politics, policy and law, 2018-02, Vol.43 (1), p.69-108</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2018 by Duke University Press 2018.</rights><rights>Copyright Duke University Press, NC & IL Feb 1, 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c501t-bd909b378f5d217463f23de88bb0ca73a116f3718833db946131f041890cf2ce3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c501t-bd909b378f5d217463f23de88bb0ca73a116f3718833db946131f041890cf2ce3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27866,27924,27925,33774</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28972019$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gorsky, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Millward, Gareth</creatorcontrib><title>Resource Allocation for Equity in the British National Health Service, 1948–89: An Advocacy Coalition Analysis of the RAWP</title><title>Journal of health politics, policy and law</title><addtitle>J Health Polit Policy Law</addtitle><description>Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is a universal, single-payer health system in which the central state has been instrumental in ensuring equity. This article investigates why from the 1970s a policy to achieve equal access for equal need was implemented. Despite the founding principle that the NHS should “universalize the best,” this was a controversial policy goal, implying substantial redistribution from London and the South and threatening established medical, political, and bureaucratic interests. Our conceptual approach draws on the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), which foregrounds the influence of research and ideas in the policy process. We first outline the spatial inequities that the NHS inherited, the work of the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP), and its new redistributive formula. We then introduce the ACF approach, analyzing the RAWP's prehistory and formation in advocacy coalition terms, focusing particularly on the rise of health economics. Our explanation emphasizes the consensual commitment to equity, which relegated conflict to more technical questions of application. The “buy-in” of midlevel bureaucrats was central to the RAWP's successful alignment of equity with allocative efficiency. We contrast this with the failure of advocacy for equity of health outcomes: here consensus over core beliefs and technical solutions proved elusive.</description><subject>Access</subject><subject>Advocacy</subject><subject>Allocative efficiency</subject><subject>Beliefs</subject><subject>Bureaucracy</subject><subject>Bureaucrats</subject><subject>Equity</subject><subject>Founding</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Health behavior</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health economics</subject><subject>Health Equity</subject><subject>Health problems</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Health status</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inequality</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health</subject><subject>Policy Making</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Political Science</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Prehistoric era</subject><subject>Public Health and Health Policy</subject><subject>Public Policy</subject><subject>Redistribution</subject><subject>Resource Allocation</subject><subject>State Medicine - organization & administration</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0361-6878</issn><issn>1527-1927</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kctu1DAUhi1ERYfCnhWyxIYFAR8749gsKoVRaStVgAqIpeU4DuPiiad2MtJILHgH3rBPgufScpHwxovznc_n-EfoCZCXQGH6ijAOXFSiKGkpBZT30ASmtCpA0uo-mmzKxaZ-iB6mdEXyYcAfoEMqZEUJyAn6fmlTGKOxuPY-GD240OMuRHxyPbphjV2Ph7nFb6IbXJrjd1tAe3xmtR_m-KONK2fsCwyyFDc_fgr5Gtc9rttVdpk1ngXt3dZZ5651cgmHbmu8rL98eIQOOu2Tfby_j9DntyefZmfFxfvT81l9UZgpgaFoWklkwyrRTVsKVclZR1lrhWgaYnTFNADvWAVCMNY2suTAoCMlCElMR41lR-h4512OzcK2xvZD1F4to1vouFZBO_V3pXdz9TWsFGdAuRRZ8HwviOF6tGlQC5eM9V73NoxJ5e15jiDjGX32D3qV_zcvnxQlFKikkm-EZEeZGFKKtrsbBojaRKtuo1X7aHPL0z-XuGu4zTIDbAe04zc7LqNN6ffb_9X-Apmkrd8</recordid><startdate>201802</startdate><enddate>201802</enddate><creator>Gorsky, Martin</creator><creator>Millward, Gareth</creator><general>Duke University Press</general><general>Duke University Press, NC & IL</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201802</creationdate><title>Resource Allocation for Equity in the British National Health Service, 1948–89: An Advocacy Coalition Analysis of the RAWP</title><author>Gorsky, Martin ; Millward, Gareth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c501t-bd909b378f5d217463f23de88bb0ca73a116f3718833db946131f041890cf2ce3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Access</topic><topic>Advocacy</topic><topic>Allocative efficiency</topic><topic>Beliefs</topic><topic>Bureaucracy</topic><topic>Bureaucrats</topic><topic>Equity</topic><topic>Founding</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Health behavior</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health economics</topic><topic>Health Equity</topic><topic>Health problems</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Health status</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inequality</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health</topic><topic>Policy Making</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Political Science</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Prehistoric era</topic><topic>Public Health and Health Policy</topic><topic>Public Policy</topic><topic>Redistribution</topic><topic>Resource Allocation</topic><topic>State Medicine - organization & administration</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gorsky, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Millward, Gareth</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of health politics, policy and law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gorsky, Martin</au><au>Millward, Gareth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Resource Allocation for Equity in the British National Health Service, 1948–89: An Advocacy Coalition Analysis of the RAWP</atitle><jtitle>Journal of health politics, policy and law</jtitle><addtitle>J Health Polit Policy Law</addtitle><date>2018-02</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>69</spage><epage>108</epage><pages>69-108</pages><issn>0361-6878</issn><eissn>1527-1927</eissn><abstract>Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is a universal, single-payer health system in which the central state has been instrumental in ensuring equity. This article investigates why from the 1970s a policy to achieve equal access for equal need was implemented. Despite the founding principle that the NHS should “universalize the best,” this was a controversial policy goal, implying substantial redistribution from London and the South and threatening established medical, political, and bureaucratic interests. Our conceptual approach draws on the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), which foregrounds the influence of research and ideas in the policy process. We first outline the spatial inequities that the NHS inherited, the work of the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP), and its new redistributive formula. We then introduce the ACF approach, analyzing the RAWP's prehistory and formation in advocacy coalition terms, focusing particularly on the rise of health economics. Our explanation emphasizes the consensual commitment to equity, which relegated conflict to more technical questions of application. The “buy-in” of midlevel bureaucrats was central to the RAWP's successful alignment of equity with allocative efficiency. We contrast this with the failure of advocacy for equity of health outcomes: here consensus over core beliefs and technical solutions proved elusive.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Duke University Press</pub><pmid>28972019</pmid><doi>10.1215/03616878-4249814</doi><tpages>40</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0361-6878 |
ispartof | Journal of health politics, policy and law, 2018-02, Vol.43 (1), p.69-108 |
issn | 0361-6878 1527-1927 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6312698 |
source | MEDLINE; PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; EBSCOhost Political Science Complete |
subjects | Access Advocacy Allocative efficiency Beliefs Bureaucracy Bureaucrats Equity Founding Health Health behavior Health care policy Health economics Health Equity Health problems Health services Health status Humans Inequality Medicine Medicine and Health Policy Making Political parties Political Science Politics Prehistoric era Public Health and Health Policy Public Policy Redistribution Resource Allocation State Medicine - organization & administration United Kingdom |
title | Resource Allocation for Equity in the British National Health Service, 1948–89: An Advocacy Coalition Analysis of the RAWP |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T07%3A28%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Resource%20Allocation%20for%20Equity%20in%20the%20British%20National%20Health%20Service,%201948%E2%80%9389:%20An%20Advocacy%20Coalition%20Analysis%20of%20the%20RAWP&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20health%20politics,%20policy%20and%20law&rft.au=Gorsky,%20Martin&rft.date=2018-02&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=69&rft.epage=108&rft.pages=69-108&rft.issn=0361-6878&rft.eissn=1527-1927&rft_id=info:doi/10.1215/03616878-4249814&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2021292968%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2021292968&rft_id=info:pmid/28972019&rfr_iscdi=true |