NHS resource allocation 1997 to 2003 with particular reference to the impact on rural areas
Abstract
The central hypothesis of this study was that the allocation system for NHS hospital and community health services between 1997 and 2003 was not meeting key principles of compensating for differences in the need for services and unavoidable costs.
The review and analyses in this study indicate that the underpinning assumptions used when formulating the need adjustment were not robust and that this led to the selection of inappropriate proxies for need. In addition it is concluded that the age adjustment underestimated the costs of elderly care.
This study has concluded that the pay adjustment, which was the largest in the formula, did not reflect actual unavoidable differences in cost because the Warwick studies that were used to set the adjustment ignored the monopsonistic nature of the NHS. As a consequence the pay adjustment was based on the assumption that NHS salaries should be related to local salaries.
This study identified unavoidable additional costs of providing healthcare in rural areas. These findings were consistent with other comprehensive studies on healthcare costs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This study concludes that the exclusion of a market forces adjustment for rurality was inconsistent with all other comparable allocation formulae in the Home Countries. The absence of a rurality adjustment resulted in rural areas receiving a lower proportion of NHS funding than was justified and this is referred to as the Inverse Share Law.
This study concludes that the central hypothesis was correct and that a rurality adjustment was justified, but that the principal determinant of service quality was an adequate focus on efficiency.
Type
Thesis, PhD Doctor of Philosophy
Collections
Description of related resources
Warren, M., (2000), A chronology of state medicine, public health, welfare and related services in Britain: 1066-1999 ISBN 1900273063 www.chronology.org.ukWhite, C. P., Halton, P., Flowerdew, R., (1999), Country strife: rural areas will continue to receive a raw deal unless funding formulas are changed, Health Service Journal, 20-21,12 August
White, C. P., Halton, P., Flowerdew, R., (2000), The Scottish lesson in healthcare funding, Parliamentary Brief, Health Special, 6, 4, 22-25
White, C. P., Flowerdew, R., (1999), Rural health formula revisited, Public Finance, 26-28,10 December
White, C. P., (2001), Avoiding the postcode lottery, Overview, 35, 46-47
Asthana, S., Gibson, A., Moon, G., Dicker, J., Brigham, P., (2002), Rural areas may need more health care resources in England too, British Medical Journal, 324
Banyard, R., (30 January 1997), Out in the field, Health Service Journal, 30-31
Bentham, G. , Haynes, R., (1986), A Raw Deal in Remoter Areas?, Family Practitioner Services, 13, 5, 84-87
Carr-Hill, R., Rice, N., (1995), Is enumeration district level an improvement on ward level analysis in studies of deprivation and health? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 49, S28- 29
Cloke, P. and Edwards, Rurality in England and Wales, (1981), A Replication of the 1971 index, Regional Studies, 20(4), Cambridge University Press)
Craig, J., (1988), Local Authority urban-rural indicators compared, Population Trends, 51, 30-38
Department of Health, RAWP 1, History of staff market forces factor, www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/rawp1.pdf
Health Authority Revenue Allocations Exposition Book 2000/2001, (1999),Resource Allocation and Funding Team, Finance and Performance Directorate NHS Executive
MHA and Operational Research in Health Ltd, (1997), Study of Costs of Providing Health Services in Rural Areas, Progress Report to Resource Allocation Group Volume 1
Scottish Executive Health Department, (1999), Fair shares for all, Report of the National Review of Resource Allocation for the NHS in Scotland, J Arbuthnott, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of Strathclyde University
Tudor Hart, J., (1971), The inverse care law, Lancet, 405-412
Except where otherwise noted within the work, this item's licence for re-use is described as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.