Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2034228099> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 48 of
48
with 100 items per page.
- W2034228099 endingPage "1619" @default.
- W2034228099 startingPage "1618" @default.
- W2034228099 abstract "The internal market was introduced into the NHS to improve patient care by freeing relationships between purchasers and providers. As markets in gas, water, and telephone services have been liberalised, regulatory bodies have been set up to promote competition and limit the behaviour of monopoly suppliers. Does the internal market need an Ofhealth, along the line of Ofgas (the Office of Gas Supply), Ofwat, and Oftel?To get the benefits of a market there must be scope for comparison and choice between providers and for comparison between purchasers. But several features of the current internal market limit choice and comparison. For example, hospitals are likely to be monopoly suppliers of some of their services. Information on the quality of services may be poor. To enable suppliers to make decisions on investment they need longer term contracts, but these bring the danger of exploitation by one or other party to the contract.Under current arrangements, purchasers do not directly compete with each other, which is not necessarily a bad thing—competition for patients among purchasers can be accompanied by selection of patients. But if purchasers don't have to worry about losing patients if the services they purchase for them are poor then limited incentive exists for purchasers to be very responsive to the populations on whose behalf they …" @default.
- W2034228099 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2034228099 creator A5087414125 @default.
- W2034228099 date "1995-06-24" @default.
- W2034228099 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
- W2034228099 title "Do we need an Ofhealth?" @default.
- W2034228099 cites W2047525098 @default.
- W2034228099 cites W2061852620 @default.
- W2034228099 cites W2082904103 @default.
- W2034228099 cites W2119751101 @default.
- W2034228099 doi "https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6995.1618" @default.
- W2034228099 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2550004" @default.
- W2034228099 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7795436" @default.
- W2034228099 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
- W2034228099 type Work @default.
- W2034228099 sameAs 2034228099 @default.
- W2034228099 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2034228099 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2034228099 hasAuthorship W2034228099A5087414125 @default.
- W2034228099 hasBestOaLocation W20342280992 @default.
- W2034228099 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
- W2034228099 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W2034228099 hasConceptScore W2034228099C2522767166 @default.
- W2034228099 hasConceptScore W2034228099C41008148 @default.
- W2034228099 hasIssue "6995" @default.
- W2034228099 hasLocation W20342280991 @default.
- W2034228099 hasLocation W20342280992 @default.
- W2034228099 hasLocation W20342280993 @default.
- W2034228099 hasLocation W20342280994 @default.
- W2034228099 hasOpenAccess W2034228099 @default.
- W2034228099 hasPrimaryLocation W20342280991 @default.
- W2034228099 hasRelatedWork W1996408511 @default.
- W2034228099 hasRelatedWork W2096946506 @default.
- W2034228099 hasRelatedWork W2350741829 @default.
- W2034228099 hasRelatedWork W2358668433 @default.
- W2034228099 hasRelatedWork W2376932109 @default.
- W2034228099 hasRelatedWork W2382290278 @default.
- W2034228099 hasRelatedWork W2390279801 @default.
- W2034228099 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
- W2034228099 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
- W2034228099 hasRelatedWork W4247880953 @default.
- W2034228099 hasVolume "310" @default.
- W2034228099 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2034228099 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2034228099 magId "2034228099" @default.
- W2034228099 workType "article" @default.