An Analysis of the General Consumer Interest as a Source of Regulatory Legitimacy in the Case of the Dutch Healthcare Authority

W. Sauter
{"title":"An Analysis of the General Consumer Interest as a Source of Regulatory Legitimacy in the Case of the Dutch Healthcare Authority","authors":"W. Sauter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1409625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Economic regulation by independent regulatory authorities is justified in a legal sense by theories based on delegation, (partial) ministerial responsibility and judicial review, or more recently on regulatory contracts and stakeholder representation. While none of these models is fully satisfactory they all focus either on the relationship between the regulator and the central authority, or on that with the parties that are the subject of economic regulation, and do not focus upon the ultimate objective of economic regulation itself: consumer benefits. The Dutch Healthcare Market Regulation Act (Wmg) creates a new starting point because it not only introduces the general consumer interest as a legal concept but as the priority objective of regulation - albeit based on a motivation that is largely implicit. This paper provides an initial investigation on how to interpret this concept, operationalised in the three variables quality, affordability and accessibility. It draws inter alia on the economic approach to regulation (based on the concepts of market failure and market power, and more recent notions of bounded rationality), and whether it can provide a non-trivial source of legitimacy based on the results achieved in serving the statutory constituency of the regulator: the consumer.","PeriodicalId":73765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health care law & policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health care law & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1409625","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Economic regulation by independent regulatory authorities is justified in a legal sense by theories based on delegation, (partial) ministerial responsibility and judicial review, or more recently on regulatory contracts and stakeholder representation. While none of these models is fully satisfactory they all focus either on the relationship between the regulator and the central authority, or on that with the parties that are the subject of economic regulation, and do not focus upon the ultimate objective of economic regulation itself: consumer benefits. The Dutch Healthcare Market Regulation Act (Wmg) creates a new starting point because it not only introduces the general consumer interest as a legal concept but as the priority objective of regulation - albeit based on a motivation that is largely implicit. This paper provides an initial investigation on how to interpret this concept, operationalised in the three variables quality, affordability and accessibility. It draws inter alia on the economic approach to regulation (based on the concepts of market failure and market power, and more recent notions of bounded rationality), and whether it can provide a non-trivial source of legitimacy based on the results achieved in serving the statutory constituency of the regulator: the consumer.
在荷兰卫生保健管理局的情况下,一般消费者利益作为监管合法性来源的分析
独立监管机构的经济监管在法律意义上是合理的,其依据是基于授权、(部分)部长责任和司法审查的理论,或最近基于监管合同和利益相关者代表的理论。虽然这些模型都不完全令人满意,但它们都关注监管机构与中央当局之间的关系,或者关注作为经济监管主体的各方之间的关系,而不关注经济监管本身的最终目标:消费者利益。《荷兰医疗保健市场监管法》(Wmg)创造了一个新的起点,因为它不仅将一般消费者的利益作为一个法律概念引入,而且将其作为监管的优先目标——尽管其动机在很大程度上是隐含的。本文提供了一个关于如何解释这一概念的初步调查,在质量、负担能力和可及性三个变量中进行操作。除其他外,它借鉴了监管的经济方法(基于市场失灵和市场力量的概念,以及最近的有限理性概念),以及它是否可以根据服务监管者的法定选民:消费者所取得的结果,提供一个重要的合法性来源。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信