Too Much Is Not Enough: The Rhetoric and Reality of Choice' in Health Policy and Service Delivery in the UK and Australia

By Snashall, Jamie | Kennedy School Review, Annual 2008 | Go to article overview

Too Much Is Not Enough: The Rhetoric and Reality of Choice' in Health Policy and Service Delivery in the UK and Australia


Snashall, Jamie, Kennedy School Review


During the past ten to twenty years, welfare states such as the United Kingdom and Australia have used the concept of "choice" to promote greater competition in health services and an increased role for private sector providers in the delivery of those services. Choice is framed as objectively good, as citizens have been recast as consumers who deserve the freedom to choose from a wide range of services. Under the banner of efficiency and the admirable aim of maximizing value for taxpayers, choice has also provided the necessary cover for these governments to stage a partial withdrawal from direct provision or funding of public health services. Simultaneously, those same administrations have begun directly funding some private health providers and giving tax breaks to citizens--generally middle and upper class--who can afford such services and thus exercise their "choice" to "opt out." The welfare state "guarantee"--the idea that government should use taxes to provide universal access to basic (or better) levels of health--is now regarded as quaintly old-fashioned. Instead, choice is an attractive proposition for policy makers as it promises consumer freedom, autonomy, and a supposedly wide range of options in services, the manner in which they are delivered, and how and when they are consumed.

To understand choice, we must ask and answer three major questions:

1. What are the choices?

2. Who exercises the choice? Is it the purchaser, the payer, the provider, or the end user?

3. What sort of utility does the end user derive from having choice available?

Regarding government health services, choice has been positioned as a way to empower citizens and offer them a menu of services. Having choice, however, does not always mean greater utility.

Despite ideologically different governments for the last ten years (this changed in 2007 in Australia), the United Kingdom and Australia have promoted and implemented "choice" to varying degrees in their respective health systems. Although the United Kingdom has a national health service ("socialized medicine"), both countries have universal public health insurance. Comparing British and Australian contexts helps us explore this idea of choice: what does choice cost? How does it impact health indicators and inequalities? Is the consumer more satisfied as a result of choice?

CHOICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM: NEW LABOUR, SAME RESULTS?

Choice has generally been associated with reform of the National Health Service (NHS) under the Labour government after 1997. Reform attempts have been so frequent under successive governments that it is difficult to concisely summarize such activity--indeed, some have drawn attention to the tautology of the phrase "NHS reform." From 1997 to 1999, Labour did not increase expenditure but worked to reverse two reforms in public services established by the A mid-career master in public administration candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, JAMIE SNASHALL was a political adviser and press secretary for three years to Australias Labor Party Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard. SNASHALL has also been a federal civil servant and a public affairs consultant for one of Australia's leading strategic communications firms. Conservatives--the internal market in health (a split between the purchase and provision of healthcare in order to promote competition between NHS providers) and grant-maintained schools, both hugely politically sensitive issues.

Political and health policy commentators in the United Kingdom have always assumed that former Prime Minister Blair favored choice, but mention of its benefits only began to appear in his speeches in 2004, just prior to Labour's third election win. Blair's delay in embracing the rhetoric of choice led to speculation that he was only able to talk about choice as a result of Labour's massively increased financial investment in the NHS during his second term, which eventually bore fruit and created sufficient capacity so that "exercising choice" became a real option.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Too Much Is Not Enough: The Rhetoric and Reality of Choice' in Health Policy and Service Delivery in the UK and Australia
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.