医疗保健的国际化和道德经济:NHS出口和英国病人。

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Benjamin M Hunter
{"title":"医疗保健的国际化和道德经济:NHS出口和英国病人。","authors":"Benjamin M Hunter","doi":"10.1186/s12992-025-01122-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Contemporary conditions require detailed study of internationalisation. This article offers a novel perspective on processes of internationalisation in healthcare, adapting an approach from higher education studies and enhancing it with insights from sociological scholarship on moral economies. The article asks how institutions and individuals respond to the globalising healthcare environment, and what this reveals about normative questions that govern healthcare provisioning in national contexts. This is pursued using qualitative data from a study on international commercial services in the English National Health Service (NHS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings of the research demonstrate how the UK government has sought to build political consensus around specific (commodified) forms of internationalisation in a context of fiscal austerity and xenophobia surrounding the provision of public services. The English NHS has been politically re-imagined as world-leading and of interest as an export industry. Study findings show this stance is premised normatively on processes of subsidy between two apparently distinct spheres - from international (private) to national (public) - but that in practice the distinction is hazy and subsidy at times indirect, routed to individual staff members or to commercial teams. The ascendancy of this as a prevailing, politically legitimate form of internationalisation for the English NHS contrasts sharply with non-commodified alternatives decried as 'health tourism'.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The internationalisation framework presented in this article offers a platform for future research that can shed light on the contexts, visions, policies and contestations the emerge as healthcare institutions respond to processes of globalisation. It will be important to avoid uncritical approaches to research and policy by examining not just what forms of internationalisation find favour, and their basis in geographical and racialised hierarchies, but also how approaches to healthcare internationalisation impact inequalities within and between nations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12747,"journal":{"name":"Globalization and Health","volume":"21 1","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12166583/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Internationalisation and moral economies in healthcare: NHS exporting and the English patient.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin M Hunter\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12992-025-01122-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Contemporary conditions require detailed study of internationalisation. This article offers a novel perspective on processes of internationalisation in healthcare, adapting an approach from higher education studies and enhancing it with insights from sociological scholarship on moral economies. The article asks how institutions and individuals respond to the globalising healthcare environment, and what this reveals about normative questions that govern healthcare provisioning in national contexts. This is pursued using qualitative data from a study on international commercial services in the English National Health Service (NHS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings of the research demonstrate how the UK government has sought to build political consensus around specific (commodified) forms of internationalisation in a context of fiscal austerity and xenophobia surrounding the provision of public services. The English NHS has been politically re-imagined as world-leading and of interest as an export industry. Study findings show this stance is premised normatively on processes of subsidy between two apparently distinct spheres - from international (private) to national (public) - but that in practice the distinction is hazy and subsidy at times indirect, routed to individual staff members or to commercial teams. The ascendancy of this as a prevailing, politically legitimate form of internationalisation for the English NHS contrasts sharply with non-commodified alternatives decried as 'health tourism'.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The internationalisation framework presented in this article offers a platform for future research that can shed light on the contexts, visions, policies and contestations the emerge as healthcare institutions respond to processes of globalisation. It will be important to avoid uncritical approaches to research and policy by examining not just what forms of internationalisation find favour, and their basis in geographical and racialised hierarchies, but also how approaches to healthcare internationalisation impact inequalities within and between nations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Globalization and Health\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12166583/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Globalization and Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-025-01122-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Globalization and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-025-01122-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:当代的情况需要对国际化进行详细的研究。本文提供了一个关于医疗保健国际化进程的新视角,采用了高等教育研究的方法,并通过道德经济学社会学奖学金的见解来增强它。本文询问机构和个人如何应对全球化的医疗保健环境,以及这揭示了在国家背景下管理医疗保健提供的规范性问题。这是利用一项关于英国国家卫生服务体系(NHS)国际商业服务研究的定性数据进行的。结果:研究结果表明,在财政紧缩和围绕公共服务提供的仇外心理的背景下,英国政府如何寻求围绕特定(商品化)形式的国际化建立政治共识。英国国民健康保险制度(NHS)在政治上被重新设想为世界领先的出口产业。研究结果表明,这种立场是以两个明显不同领域(从国际(私人)到国家(公共))之间的补贴过程为规范前提的,但在实践中,这种区别是模糊的,补贴有时是间接的,发给了个别工作人员或商业团队。作为一种盛行的、政治上合法的英国国民保健服务国际化形式,这种优势与被谴责为“健康旅游”的非商品替代品形成鲜明对比。结论:本文提出的国际化框架为未来的研究提供了一个平台,可以阐明医疗机构对全球化进程的反应所产生的背景、愿景、政策和争议。重要的是要避免不加批判的研究和政策方法,不仅要检查什么形式的国际化得到青睐,以及它们在地理和种族化等级制度中的基础,还要检查医疗国际化方法如何影响国家内部和国家之间的不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Internationalisation and moral economies in healthcare: NHS exporting and the English patient.

Background: Contemporary conditions require detailed study of internationalisation. This article offers a novel perspective on processes of internationalisation in healthcare, adapting an approach from higher education studies and enhancing it with insights from sociological scholarship on moral economies. The article asks how institutions and individuals respond to the globalising healthcare environment, and what this reveals about normative questions that govern healthcare provisioning in national contexts. This is pursued using qualitative data from a study on international commercial services in the English National Health Service (NHS).

Results: The findings of the research demonstrate how the UK government has sought to build political consensus around specific (commodified) forms of internationalisation in a context of fiscal austerity and xenophobia surrounding the provision of public services. The English NHS has been politically re-imagined as world-leading and of interest as an export industry. Study findings show this stance is premised normatively on processes of subsidy between two apparently distinct spheres - from international (private) to national (public) - but that in practice the distinction is hazy and subsidy at times indirect, routed to individual staff members or to commercial teams. The ascendancy of this as a prevailing, politically legitimate form of internationalisation for the English NHS contrasts sharply with non-commodified alternatives decried as 'health tourism'.

Conclusions: The internationalisation framework presented in this article offers a platform for future research that can shed light on the contexts, visions, policies and contestations the emerge as healthcare institutions respond to processes of globalisation. It will be important to avoid uncritical approaches to research and policy by examining not just what forms of internationalisation find favour, and their basis in geographical and racialised hierarchies, but also how approaches to healthcare internationalisation impact inequalities within and between nations.

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
Globalization and Health
Globalization and Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
18.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: "Globalization and Health" is a pioneering transdisciplinary journal dedicated to situating public health and well-being within the dynamic forces of global development. The journal is committed to publishing high-quality, original research that explores the impact of globalization processes on global public health. This includes examining how globalization influences health systems and the social, economic, commercial, and political determinants of health. The journal welcomes contributions from various disciplines, including policy, health systems, political economy, international relations, and community perspectives. While single-country studies are accepted, they must emphasize global/globalization mechanisms and their relevance to global-level policy discourse and decision-making.
×
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