Taking equity seriously: A dilemma for government from allocating resources to primary care groups
- 3 January 1998
- Vol. 316 (7124) , 39-42
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7124.39
Abstract
The NHS was created with the objective of reducing inequity,9 10 but this raises questions over which type of equity is being sought.11 The NHS reforms introduced two types of local insurers: general practitioner fundholders and health authorities.12 Fundholding seems to compromise two different types of equity: clinical equity, which is achieved when clinicians use only grounds of clinical priority to decide when patients are to be treated, and financial equity, which is achieved when local insurers within the NHS are allocated equal resources per capita, taking account of the relative risk of their populations.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Effect of fundholding on waiting times: database studyBMJ, 1997
- GP fundholders can no longer jump the queueBMJ, 1997
- Geographical Resource Allocation in the English National Health Service, 1971-1994: The Tension between Normative and Empirical ApproachesInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 1995
- Distribution of NHS funds between fundholding and non-fundholding practicesBMJ, 1994
- Can there be fair funding for fundholding practices?BMJ, 1994
- Reviewing RAWP. Variations in admission rates: implications for equitable allocation of resources.BMJ, 1987
- Financial incentives of subregional RAWP.BMJ, 1987
- The epidemiologic surveillance of medical care.American Journal of Public Health, 1987