1989年白皮书后的NHS资源分配:对RAWP审查研究的批评。

N Mays
{"title":"1989年白皮书后的NHS资源分配:对RAWP审查研究的批评。","authors":"N Mays","doi":"10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Government White Paper on the NHS, 'Working for Patients', abolished the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP) formula in name, but retained its general approach of ensuring geographical equity through funding health authorities by a system of weighted capitation. As a result, the longstanding debate about the appropriate need indicators to include in RAWP, which was tackled afresh in the recent NHS Management Board review of RAWP, will remain highly pertinent to NHS resource allocation in the 1990s. Yet, the research carried out for the RAWP review, on which its principal proposals for change to the need indicators were based, is inadequate for developing a new method of resource allocation after RAWP. The paper describes the research and sets out its main conceptual limitations and problems of method.</p>","PeriodicalId":75726,"journal":{"name":"Community medicine","volume":"11 3","pages":"173-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042466","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"NHS resource allocation after the 1989 white paper: a critique of the research for the RAWP review.\",\"authors\":\"N Mays\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042466\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Government White Paper on the NHS, 'Working for Patients', abolished the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP) formula in name, but retained its general approach of ensuring geographical equity through funding health authorities by a system of weighted capitation. As a result, the longstanding debate about the appropriate need indicators to include in RAWP, which was tackled afresh in the recent NHS Management Board review of RAWP, will remain highly pertinent to NHS resource allocation in the 1990s. Yet, the research carried out for the RAWP review, on which its principal proposals for change to the need indicators were based, is inadequate for developing a new method of resource allocation after RAWP. The paper describes the research and sets out its main conceptual limitations and problems of method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75726,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Community medicine\",\"volume\":\"11 3\",\"pages\":\"173-86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1989-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042466\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Community medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042466\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042466","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

摘要

关于国民保健制度的政府白皮书“为病人工作”在名义上废除了资源分配工作组(RAWP)公式,但保留了其通过按加权资本制度向卫生当局提供资金来确保地域公平的一般方法。因此,关于纳入RAWP的适当需求指标的长期争论(在最近的NHS管理委员会对RAWP的审查中重新解决了这一问题)将仍然与1990年代NHS资源分配高度相关。然而,为RAWP审查所进行的研究不足以在RAWP之后制定一种新的资源分配方法,而其关于改变需求指标的主要建议就是根据这项研究进行的。本文介绍了该研究,并阐述了其主要概念局限性和方法问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
NHS resource allocation after the 1989 white paper: a critique of the research for the RAWP review.

The Government White Paper on the NHS, 'Working for Patients', abolished the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP) formula in name, but retained its general approach of ensuring geographical equity through funding health authorities by a system of weighted capitation. As a result, the longstanding debate about the appropriate need indicators to include in RAWP, which was tackled afresh in the recent NHS Management Board review of RAWP, will remain highly pertinent to NHS resource allocation in the 1990s. Yet, the research carried out for the RAWP review, on which its principal proposals for change to the need indicators were based, is inadequate for developing a new method of resource allocation after RAWP. The paper describes the research and sets out its main conceptual limitations and problems of method.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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