| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
163358
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
THE UNITED STATES IS NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY to find its health care arrangements at the center of political debate. The United Kingdom, too, has seen increasing argument over whether its health system is being fundamentally reordered. The health care wars in the United Kingdom have not seen conflict as ferocious as that over the Affordable Care Act. All major parties publicly agree on the need to preserve the state‐run National Health Service (NHS) as the core element of the United Kingdom's health care delivery, but opponents of recent change insist that the system is being surreptitiously, but steadily, privatized and moved away from its socialized roots. Generally, reform advocates have simultaneously claimed to be making necessary changes while preserving the basic values of the NHS. Critics, however, have talked of an NHS moving away from its treasured principles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
112083
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Why is there so much discontent about the current plans to reform the National Health Service in England? What is the government trying to do, and are the critics right to want to block reform? This paper traces the genesis of the current proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill, currently in the Lords, and why the Government has had to water down significant parts of it to appease the critics. The paper argues that the case for change has not been made to public or the 1.3 million staff in the NHS, the extent and timing of the reform is far from ideal given the need to make unprecedented efficiencies in the NHS, and that the political process to gain support has been weak. Yet many elements of the Bill push the NHS in the right direction, and without effective reform the original settlement-to provide equal access to care on the basis of need-is put at risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
167892
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The government acknowledged scandalously poor care of long‐stay patients in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in 1969. This followed the Ely Hospital inquiry, which emerged in the aftermath of revelations of abuse at seven hospitals described in Barbara Robb's book Sans Everything: A Case to Answer (1967). Allegations in Sans Everything and at Ely were similar. However, the inquiry committees which investigated, ‘disproved’ those in Sans Everything and upheld those at Ely. The Ely inquiry became pivotal to NHS policy reform for long‐stay mental illness and mental handicap hospitals, and for giving patients and their families a greater voice if they had concerns about inadequacies. This paper explains the relationship between Sans Everything and ‘Ely’ and analyses the impact of Robb's work—her high‐profile press campaign, networking, and determination to achieve improvement—which triggered revelations at Ely and elsewhere, and helped shape the course and constructive outcome of the Ely inquiry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|