Author
Listed:
- Arne Hole
(National Primary Care Research & Development Centre, Centre for Health Economics, University of York)
- Giorgia Marini
(Centre for Health Economics, University of York)
- Maria Goddard
(Centre for Health Economics, University of York)
- Hugh Gravelle
(National Primary Care Research & Development Centre, Centre for Health Economics, University of York)
Abstract
The White Paper Our Health, Our Care, Our Say noted concerns about geographical equity of access to GPs (Department of Health, 2006, page 63), listed the 30 PCTs with the lowest number of GPs per head of need adjusted population, and set out policy initiatives to attract additional providers of general practice services to these PCTs. We were asked to evaluate the impact of these policies on the bottom 30 PCTs and will report in Autumn 2010. In this report we consider a number of related measurement issues which are relevant for consideration of policy on equality of access to general practice. Our main conclusion is that whilst the set of worst provided PCTs varies, sometimes substantially, with the choice of GP supply measure, need adjustment, and population base, the set of 30 identified by the White Paper contains a core of around 10 PCTs which are amongst the worst provided on most possible alternative definitions. The White Paper set also contains a larger fringe group which are in the bottom 30 on some definitions, particularly when the White Paper definition of GPs is used, but which also often fall outside the worst provided bottom 30. There is no obviously right set of definitions of GPs, need adjustments, and populations which can be implemented with available data. Judgements are required and those underlying the White Paper seem not unreasonable. However, we suggest that consideration be given to broadening the definition of the general practice staff from GPs to include practice nurses and possibly non-clinical staff as well.
Suggested Citation
Arne Hole & Giorgia Marini & Maria Goddard & Hugh Gravelle, 2008.
"Fairness in Primary Care Procurement Measures of Under-Doctoredness: Sensitivity Analysis and Trends,"
Working Papers
035cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
Handle:
RePEc:chy:respap:35cherp
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chy:respap:35cherp. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gill Forder (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.