Introduction: professional health regulation in the public interest

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
John Martyn Chamberlain
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Reform Agenda ◽  
The Public ◽  
Liberal Societies ◽  
Healthcare Work ◽  
Professional Health ◽  
Complex Relationships

This chapter provides a commentary on, and introduces, the collection of papers in this volume. It begins by outlining how professional forms of health care expertise have become increasingly subject over the last four decades to third-party scrutiny, as well as how we have witnessed greater public involvement in the monitoring and quality assurance of healthcare work, particularly in Western neo-liberal societies. It then discusses how these changes have led the ‘social closure’ model of professional work to become revised, and in doing so how this raises concerns regarding academic engagement with members of the public as part of a broader patient advocacy and policy reform agenda focused on the promotion of the public interest. This discussion helps set the scene for subsequent chapters, which together seek to unpack the complex relationships that exist between health care practitioners, civil society, the state and professional groups in a variety of different international borders and regulatory jurisdictions. In doing so, each author seeks to explore critically how calls for increased efficiency and cost effectiveness in healthcare are balanced with the need to promote the public interest through providing citizens with essential health services.

Professional Health Regulation in the Public Interest

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Regulatory Reform ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Reform Agenda ◽  
The Public ◽  
Professional Health ◽  
Sociology Of Health

There are significant variations in how healthcare systems and health professionals are regulated globally. One feature that they increasingly have in common is an emphasis on the value of including members of the public in quality assurance processes. While many argue that this will help better serve the public interest, others question how far the changing regulatory reform agenda is still dominated by medical interests. Bringing together leading academics worldwide, this collection compares and critically examines the ways in which different countries are regulating healthcare in general, and health professions in particular, in the interest of users and the wider public. It is the first book in the Sociology of Health Professions series.

Health Care

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Pestieau ◽  
Mathieu Lefebvre
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Technological Progress ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Medical Expenditure ◽  
Public Health Care ◽  
The Public ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Care Systems

This chapter reviews the public health care systems as well as their challenges. It first shows how expenditure on health care has evolved in previous decades and deals with the reasons for the growth observed in almost every European country. It emphasizes the role of technological progress as a main explanatory factor of the increase in medical expenditure but also points to the challenges facing cost-containment policies. Especially, the main common features of health care systems in Europe, such as third-party payment, single provider approach and cost-based reimbursement are discussed. Finally the chapter shows that although inequalities in health exist in the population, health care systems are redistributive. Reforms are thus needed but the trade-off between budgetary efficiency and equity is difficult.

The regulation of health care in Scandinavia: professionals, the public interest and trust

2018 ◽  
pp. 61-76
Author(s):  
Karsten Vrangbæk
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
State Level ◽  
Professional Regulation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Voluntary Health Insurance

Scandinavian health systems have traditionally been portrayed as relatively similar examples of decentralised, public integrated health systems. However, recent decades have seen significant public policy developments in the region that should lead us to modify our understanding. Several dimensions are important for understanding such developments. First, several of the countries have undergone structural reforms creating larger governance units and strengthening the state level capacity to regulate professionals and steer developments at the regional and municipal levels. Secondly, the three Nordic countries studied experienced an increase in the purchase of voluntary health insurance and the use of private providers. This introduces several issues for the equality of users and the efficiency of the system. This paper will investigate such trends and address the question: Is the Nordic health system model changing, and what are the consequences for trust, professional regulation and the public interest?

scholarly journals Involving citizens in disinvestment decisions: what do health professionals think? Findings from a multi-method study in the English NHS

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Daniels ◽  
Iestyn Williams ◽  
Stirling Bryan ◽  
Craig Mitton ◽  
Suzanne Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Local Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Care Leaders ◽  
Local Health Care ◽  
Care Systems

AbstractPublic involvement in disinvestment decision making in health care is widely advocated, and in some cases legally mandated. However, attempts to involve the public in other areas of health policy have been accused of tokenism and manipulation. This paper presents research into the views of local health care leaders in the English National Health Service (NHS) with regards to the involvement of citizens and local communities in disinvestment decision making. The research includes a Q study and follow-up interviews with a sample of health care clinicians and managers in senior roles in the English NHS. It finds that whilst initial responses suggest high levels of support for public involvement, further probing of attitudes and experiences shows higher levels of ambivalence and risk aversion and a far more cautious overall stance. This study has implications for the future of disinvestment activities and public involvement in health care systems faced with increased resource constraint. Recommendations are made for future research and practice.

scholarly journals Public involvement policies in health: exploring their conceptual basis

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Wait ◽  
Ellen Nolte
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Conceptual Basis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Current Health ◽  
Care Services

Despite its obvious appeal, the concept of public involvement is poorly defined and its rationale and objectives are rarely specified when applied to current health policy contexts. This paper explores some of the underlying concepts, definitions, and issues underpinning public involvement policies and proposes a set of criteria and questions that need to be addressed to allow for the evaluation of public involvement strategies and their impact on the health policy process. It aims to further our understanding of the role that public involvement may play in contributing to health systems that are responsive to the needs and priorities of the public, and, ultimately, providing better health and health care services to the community at large.

scholarly journals Good Intentions, Questionable Results

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kayla Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Child Maltreatment ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Mandatory Reporting ◽  
Mandated Reporting ◽  
The Public

Mandatory reporting legislation is designed to clarify when to report and ensure that all cases of child maltreatment are reported. However, while mandated reporting is well meaning and in the public interest, many practical difficulties for health care professionals and families reduce its effectiveness. Therefore, Ontario mandatory reporting legislation is falling short of its purpose of eliminating underreporting to protect children. This paper outlines this problem and offers some potential solutions.

scholarly journals The role of EU competition law in health care and the ‘undertaking’ concept

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Johan W. van de Gronden ◽  
Mary Guy
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Health Care Context

Abstract Part of the controversy surrounding competition and health care stems from the complexity connected with delineating the applicability of competition law – encompassing both the provisions governing anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominance and the state-aid rules. Cases determined at the European Union (EU) level within the past 30 years have developed a broad framework, and notable trends have emerged – for example, a distinction between health care providers and managing bodies (purchasers). The former have been subject to an ‘abstract’ test and the latter to a more sophisticated ‘concrete’ test. In this paper, we chart the development of the EU courts’ approach to developing the ‘undertaking’ concept in health care and examine the current EU competition law framework with a view to identifying future directions. van de Gronden has recently identified a ‘three-prong’ test of exemption from competition law in connection with the recent CEPPB case: firstly, where the supply of services is predominantly dependent upon public financing; secondly, the public funding aims to achieve a public interest goal and thirdly, the activities concerned are closely related to this public interest goal. We examine this test in a health care context, drawing on our findings regarding Dutch competition reforms.

scholarly journals Insite: Right Answer, Wrong Question

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1, 2 & 3) ◽  
pp. 2011
Author(s):  
Gillian Calder
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Health Care Facility ◽  
The Public ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
Court Of Appeal

I have entitled my five-minute comment: “Insite: Right Answer, Wrong Question.”1 The focus of my comments is on the division-of-powers approach used in the reasoning of Justice Huddart of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Although asked to determine whether the legislative regime at issue was enacted validly, that is, whether it was either federal or provincial—the question that she wanted to answer, and did answer, was whether the matter should be federal or provincial. My reading of the majority reasons is that Justice Huddart (with Justice Rowles concurring) used the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity (“IJI”) to reach the conclusion that she deemed to be the just outcome—that “the supervision of self-injections of illegally-possessed drugs in a provincially authorized and supported health care facility is dictated by the public interest in health care”2 and thus falls exclusively within provincial jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document