Search

The article reports that the U.S. Health and Social Care Act 2012 will replace the administrative structure of the NHS in England and its implications on existing routine data systems and the production of routine statistics. As stated, under the Act, unlike primary care trusts (PCTs), commissioning groups will no longer have responsibility for geographical areas and their practices will be able to recruit patients living anywhere in England. It also states that some health services for which PCTs are responsible will be out of the health service entirely or may be provided under the new public health system.

The article focuses on the effect of legislative amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill to the health services in Great Britain. It states that the duty of primary care trusts (PCT) will be abolished to secure everyone's health services in a defined area. It mentions the establishment of a parallel health service in the local authority sector and restrictions for clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). It concludes that the amended bill fails to discuss clearly who will be responsible for the health services of the people and creates new charging powers. INSET: PUBLIC HEALTH FUNCTIONS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO NEW CHARGING POWERS.

The article looks at the extent of the changes to community pharmacy in Great Britain under the revision of the National Health Service (NHS) community pharmacy contract. Reforms were implemented by the British government in 2005 aimed at increasing access and patient choice, reduce general practitioner workload and lower costs to the NHS. An overview of the community pharmacy market is presented, as well as changes to control of entry regulation and an analysis of its implications for primary care.

The authors reflect on issues concerning private finance initiative (PFI) in Great Britain. They note the controversy over hospital bed reductions in Britain related to PFI in 2000. They cite the problem of higher interest rate charges and risks involving PFI, leading to the claim that PFI is even less affordable. Also noted is the number of PFI projects that had been signed to the British National Health Service (NHS).

This article focuses on a plan by the British coalition government to open up the market in the National Health Service (NHS). It notes the growing scepticism about the merit of the private sector in U.S. health care, as well as the proposal in Great Britain to devolve financial risk to general practice consortiums through market competition and a reimbursement system. It points out the risk posed by mentally ill patients due to their higher overall health costs and unpredictable care. It also notes the development of the competitive market of mixed providers, as well as the effect of competition in the NHS on quality and efficiency.

A letter is presented in response to the article "Dismantling the signposts to public health? NHS data under the Health and Social Care Act 2012" by Allyson M. Pollock, Alison Macfarlane and Sylvia Godden in the April 2012 issue; a response by Pollock and colleagues to this letter is also included.

The article offers information on Health and Social Care Bill. It mentions the significance of writing a letter to the House of Lords in the Great Britain to protect National Health Service (NHS) as the bill did not deliver quality and fairness. It mentions that the healthcare needs of the entire population has been evaluated by public health professionals. It also discusses several problems related to the bill which includes the abolishment of direct accountability.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Equity, Waiting Times, and NHS Reforms: Retrospective Study," by Z. N. Cooper and colleagues in the September 3, 2009 issue.