Acting reactively: private investment, controversies and regulatory and policy responses in residential long-term care in Ontario (Canada), Lombardy (Italy), the Netherlands and England (United Kingdom).

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Jitse Schuurmans, Laura De Brabandere, Michele Castelli, Sarbina Wimmer, Jean-Louis Denis
{"title":"Acting reactively: private investment, controversies and regulatory and policy responses in residential long-term care in Ontario (Canada), Lombardy (Italy), the Netherlands and England (United Kingdom).","authors":"Jitse Schuurmans, Laura De Brabandere, Michele Castelli, Sarbina Wimmer, Jean-Louis Denis","doi":"10.1017/S1744133126100401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Private investment in residential long-term care has surged around the world. Growing evidence shows that this is changing the institutional logic and the inner workings of the sector, prioritising the financial interests of asset holders above those of other stakeholders (eg. clients, care professionals and regulators). We know little about how policy makers and regulators are responding to private investment and profit-making in the long-term care sector. This paper addresses that gap by analysing policies prompting the growth of private investment and profit-making in residential long-term care, the emerging power struggles in some cases between asset holders and other stakeholders in long-term care, the controversies that have arisen and the concomitant responses of regulators and policy makers in Ontario (Canada), Lombardy (Italy), the Netherlands and England (United Kingdom). We show that the institutional context (eg. legal frameworks, policies and regulations) shapes controversies concerning quality, accessibility and affordability of care, and argue that regulators and policymakers in the constituencies we studied are responding reactively to such controversies rather than proactively anticipating and preventing unwanted effects. Our analysis provides policymakers with valuable insights regarding the regulation and governance of private investment and profit-making in the residential long-term care sector.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133126100401","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Private investment in residential long-term care has surged around the world. Growing evidence shows that this is changing the institutional logic and the inner workings of the sector, prioritising the financial interests of asset holders above those of other stakeholders (eg. clients, care professionals and regulators). We know little about how policy makers and regulators are responding to private investment and profit-making in the long-term care sector. This paper addresses that gap by analysing policies prompting the growth of private investment and profit-making in residential long-term care, the emerging power struggles in some cases between asset holders and other stakeholders in long-term care, the controversies that have arisen and the concomitant responses of regulators and policy makers in Ontario (Canada), Lombardy (Italy), the Netherlands and England (United Kingdom). We show that the institutional context (eg. legal frameworks, policies and regulations) shapes controversies concerning quality, accessibility and affordability of care, and argue that regulators and policymakers in the constituencies we studied are responding reactively to such controversies rather than proactively anticipating and preventing unwanted effects. Our analysis provides policymakers with valuable insights regarding the regulation and governance of private investment and profit-making in the residential long-term care sector.

积极行动:安大略(加拿大)、伦巴第(意大利)、荷兰和英格兰(联合王国)在长期住宿护理方面的私人投资、争议以及监管和政策反应。
在全球范围内,私人对长期住宿护理的投资激增。越来越多的证据表明,这正在改变该行业的制度逻辑和内部运作方式,将资产持有人的财务利益置于其他利益相关者(例如金融服务)之上。客户、护理专业人员和监管机构)。对于政策制定者和监管机构如何应对长期护理行业的私人投资和盈利行为,我们知之甚少。本文通过分析促使私人投资和长期住宿护理盈利增长的政策,在某些情况下资产持有人和其他长期护理利益相关者之间出现的权力斗争,已经出现的争议以及安大略省(加拿大),伦巴第(意大利),荷兰和英格兰(英国)的监管机构和政策制定者的相应反应来解决这一差距。我们表明,制度背景(例如;法律框架(政策和法规)形成了关于医疗质量、可及性和可负担性的争议,并认为我们研究的选区的监管机构和政策制定者正在被动地应对这些争议,而不是主动预测和防止不必要的影响。我们的分析为政策制定者提供了关于私人投资和长期护理部门盈利的监管和治理的宝贵见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Economics Policy and Law
Health Economics Policy and Law HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: International trends highlight the confluence of economics, politics and legal considerations in the health policy process. Health Economics, Policy and Law serves as a forum for scholarship on health policy issues from these perspectives, and is of use to academics, policy makers and health care managers and professionals. HEPL is international in scope, publishes both theoretical and applied work, and contains articles on all aspects of health policy. Considerable emphasis is placed on rigorous conceptual development and analysis, and on the presentation of empirical evidence that is relevant to the policy process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书