Search

Addresses concerns in the United Kingdom of whether primary care trusts leads to United States-style health care. Ability of a National Health Service (NHS) body to charge for personal care and hotel costs; How government guidance on intermediate care restricts entitlement to NHS care to six weeks except in exceptional circumstances; Details of the incentive structure of the new system, which will force care trusts to find ways of constraining expenditure through rationing, user charges, and commercial activities.

The article discusses developments in the health care sector in Great Britain as of January 2014, particularly the role of special administrators in the reduction of National Health Service (NHS) hospital services. It focuses on the amendment for the Health and Social Care Act of 2012 that is being tackled by the British Parliament. The amendment aims to restore a partial planning function of the government in the health services sector.

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.

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.

Discusses the choice extended to patients to choose among public and private health providers in Great Britain. Effort of Great Britain's National Health Service to engage more constructively with private sector; Implications for national control over health policy; Role of Great Britain's National Agreement on Trade in Services; Failure of Great Britain to protect its health policy.

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.

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.