非价格分配程序:苏格兰解决国民保健服务问题的办法。

R G Milne, B Torsney
{"title":"非价格分配程序:苏格兰解决国民保健服务问题的办法。","authors":"R G Milne,&nbsp;B Torsney","doi":"10.1007/978-94-011-2392-1_9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Except for a few NHS services, the allocation of resources depends on administrative-cummedical decision-making. At one level the Scottish Home and Health Department allocates funds between the fifteen health boards, at another level clinicians allocate resources between patients. We examine experience at a level intermediate between these two, and focus on the provision of two services--diagnostic radiology and ECG--at health centres. A benefit: cost framework is used to test three hypotheses about how the two services have been allocated. The three hypotheses relate to the benefits from provision and are characterised as 'medical excellence', 'equity' and 'market' orientated. Data on health centre list size and distance to alternative provision are used to test the hypotheses. The conclusions are as follows. The equity and market models are equally valid descriptions for ECG, a service provided by general practitioners. A combination of the equity and/or market model with the medical model is a valid description for diagnostic radiology, a service provided by health boards and the Scottish Home and Health Department.</p>","PeriodicalId":79866,"journal":{"name":"Developments in health economics and public policy","volume":"1 ","pages":"187-202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-price allocative procedures: Scottish solutions to a National Health Service problem.\",\"authors\":\"R G Milne,&nbsp;B Torsney\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/978-94-011-2392-1_9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Except for a few NHS services, the allocation of resources depends on administrative-cummedical decision-making. At one level the Scottish Home and Health Department allocates funds between the fifteen health boards, at another level clinicians allocate resources between patients. We examine experience at a level intermediate between these two, and focus on the provision of two services--diagnostic radiology and ECG--at health centres. A benefit: cost framework is used to test three hypotheses about how the two services have been allocated. The three hypotheses relate to the benefits from provision and are characterised as 'medical excellence', 'equity' and 'market' orientated. Data on health centre list size and distance to alternative provision are used to test the hypotheses. The conclusions are as follows. The equity and market models are equally valid descriptions for ECG, a service provided by general practitioners. A combination of the equity and/or market model with the medical model is a valid description for diagnostic radiology, a service provided by health boards and the Scottish Home and Health Department.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developments in health economics and public policy\",\"volume\":\"1 \",\"pages\":\"187-202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1992-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developments in health economics and public policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2392-1_9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developments in health economics and public policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2392-1_9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

除了少数NHS服务外,资源的分配取决于行政和医疗决策。在一级,苏格兰家庭和卫生部在15个保健委员会之间分配资金,在另一级,临床医生在病人之间分配资源。我们研究了介于这两者之间的水平的经验,并侧重于在保健中心提供两种服务——诊断放射学和心电图。效益:成本框架用于测试关于两种服务如何分配的三个假设。这三种假设与提供的好处有关,其特点是“医疗卓越”、“公平”和“市场”导向。使用保健中心列表大小和与替代供应的距离的数据来检验假设。研究结论如下。股权模型和市场模型对全科医生提供的心电图服务同样有效。公平和(或)市场模式与医疗模式相结合是诊断放射学的有效描述,这是卫生委员会和苏格兰家庭和卫生部提供的一项服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Non-price allocative procedures: Scottish solutions to a National Health Service problem.

Except for a few NHS services, the allocation of resources depends on administrative-cummedical decision-making. At one level the Scottish Home and Health Department allocates funds between the fifteen health boards, at another level clinicians allocate resources between patients. We examine experience at a level intermediate between these two, and focus on the provision of two services--diagnostic radiology and ECG--at health centres. A benefit: cost framework is used to test three hypotheses about how the two services have been allocated. The three hypotheses relate to the benefits from provision and are characterised as 'medical excellence', 'equity' and 'market' orientated. Data on health centre list size and distance to alternative provision are used to test the hypotheses. The conclusions are as follows. The equity and market models are equally valid descriptions for ECG, a service provided by general practitioners. A combination of the equity and/or market model with the medical model is a valid description for diagnostic radiology, a service provided by health boards and the Scottish Home and Health Department.

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