Archive

Tag Archives: UK

Identity Crisis (DC Comics)

Rescue is on the way; thank goodness for the superhero to save us. (DC Comics) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Right now, there is the proposed NHS Reinstatement Bill, a lobby document which lays out a way to reverse many NHS reforms.

This lobby document, which is what is it, is familiar reading, and brings back various structures that in the past have failed. You can find information on it at this link.

What is interesting about this approach is the aura of respectability that it wraps itself in, by proposing the changes as a legislative draft, almost as though it were ready to go to committee.  This is, obviously, an influencing tactic designed to force debate onto the topics covered in the proposed bill, and disarm critics who don’t agree that the points in the lobby document are the right starting points. In that respect, the lobby document polarises positions, particularly against current policy direction.

The whole lobby document’s comments and notes identifies proposed changes to a variety of existing legilsation. What we don’t find, though is any evidence that the authors were in any way persuasive  or influential during public consultations at the time. We call that ‘sour grapes’.

Approaches such as this suffer from the following:

  1.  a belief that the fundamental values underpinning the health service can only be protected in a particular way and these are the ways things used to be.
  2. a belief that the changes that have been made have violated these values; moreover, that the solutions have made things ‘worse’ as they see it.
  3. selective use of academic research to support the positions that one wishes to avoid changing.

New PublicManagement as reform of government itself must sit uncomfortably with this regressive thinking.

For the authors, they would no doubt point to market failure logic to prove that the NHS should not be ‘marketised’ as they put it, forgetting that a greater fear is ‘government failure’, for which there is ample evidence, not just with the NHS but a whole host of other public initiatives and legislation that has wasted public money.

Healthcare systems are complex and by trying to overlay what they see as simple solutions to the problems they claim arise from the reform agenda of past years, they misrepresent what the actual problems are. As messy, or complex/wicked, challenges, the authors believe that by taking away that messiness, they’ll also take away the problems. But they know just as well as anyone, that their solutions will only create, perhaps even recreate, the very problems that led to reform in the first place, except now they will be today’s problems, not yesterday’s.

One might argue that the authors are committing a type 3 error, of unintentionally solving the wrong problem well, but that would assume that they have are not clear in their minds what they are proposing. Therefore, it appears they are do know better and are committing a type 4 error, of intentially solving the wrong problem well because that fits with their policy preferences, or prejudices.

That’s why this is a lobby document, designed to intensionally convince, (is mislead too strong?) others of their definition of what the NHS problem is.

Regardless, the lobby document and the authors are caught by a fundament policy trap: of solving the wrong problem.

Want to know more?

Government failure in the UK is examined in Anthony King and Ivor Crewe, The Blunders of Our Governments, 2013 (@Amazon) and in Richard Bacon and Christopher Hope, Conundrum: Why every government gets things wrong and what we can do about it, 2013. (@Amazon)

New Public Management was originally conceptualised by Christopher Hood, in 1991, A Public Management for All Seasons. Public Administration, 69 (Spring), 3-19. Some (Dunlevey et al) argue that New Public Management is dead and that governance in the digital era requires greater, not less, government. That may be the case for some, but if you actually look at the tools that are available to government in a digital world, you’d find that there is little reason for government to own or run very much. See Christopher Hood and Helen Margetts, The Tools of Government in the Digital Age, 2007. (@Amazon)

I have found Leslie David Simon’s book, NetPolicy.com (Woodrow Willson Centre, 2000) an early, and compelling way of laying out the digital agenda in a policy context really well. (@Amazon)

I would also recommend Vito Tanzi, Government versus Markets: the changing economic role of the state, 2011. (@Amazon)

 

Health care systems

How to choose? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The scandal that has now led to the ‘resignation’ of the head of the US VA Health System matters to more than just the US and US veterans. The VA health system is the closest thing the US has to the UK’s NHS and to the health systems of many other countries where the state is the controlling force.

According to reports in the New York Times, three factors are relevant and expanded in Forbes:

  1. shortage of physicians
  2. perverse incentives
  3. culture of dishonesty

Boiling this down to critical factors that are relevant to systems outside the US leads to specific considerations to countries which try to control healthcare through greater state intervention:

  1. Physician shortages are caused in the main by health systems limiting access to medical schools (and indeed to other professions). There is far too much evidence that labour force forecasting is inaccurate and given the highly specialised nature of healthcare, we really don’t know how many doctors, nurses, etc. we need, just that it is unlikely the current system of rationing produces sufficient supply. While the costs of training of health professionals are high, the rewards are also high and of good quality. These benefits accrue to the individuals as well as society. Why, though, the public purse should subsidise this as much as it does, and also limit access needs to be rethought.
  2. Health systems use a variety of incentives to coerce or alter clinical behaviour. While putting doctors on the payroll is assumed to limit financial conflicts of interest, it embeds clinical behaviour within a managed system full of rules and regulations which invariably will put administrative convenience above clinical and patient needs. Falsifying records is nothing new, but using data to influence rewards only creates the incentive to game those rules to maximise the benefits. Gaming of incentives is not new, but it is possible to model/test whether the proposed incentives will work and how they might be perverse.
  3. Dishonesty is embedded in the culture of work, and rooting out dishonesty needs to go back to, perhaps incentives again, to understand why it is more beneficial to lie. This may exist more easily within highly bureaucratised systems, where people are dislocated from the patients, and see themselves simply tasked with ensuring the stability of the system. This is a tough one but in some countries doctors’ employment contracts explicitly put them in a conflict with their employers by emphasising the relationship between their work and costs.

As the US has noted on the VA, the system often put the doctor in a conflict of interest between the patient and their paymaster, the government. Many countries have the same arrangements and should not, therefore, be complacent.

It is certainly timely and appropriate for policymakers and those who think systematically about healthcare systems, to study carefully what happened at VA, and apply that learning on their own healthcare systems. I am sure there would be much to think about.

If anyone wants to do this, give me a call.

 

 

 

 

The Academic Health Science Centre undertakes three important missions:

  • they treat patients

  • they conduct research

  • they teach the next generation of clinicians

The AHSC model, as a structured and integrated organisational form, is most developed in the US, Canada, Netherlands, UK, Sweden and a few others, and emergent in other countries.

They are a distinct and probably unique type of organisation, quite expensive to run (annual revenue streams on the order of €2 billion or more), very complex and home to a diversity of stakeholders. Often, AHSCs are thought of simply as teaching hospitals in a loose affiliation with universities but this underpowers their role.

The AHSC represents the most robust model of an institution that could be seen as sitting at the nexus of innovation and entrepreneurialism in health sciences. They essentially own the challenges facing us in the biomedical and treatment arenas, and have access to, or indeed may own, their own research capacity to solve those problems – they can be seen as both producer of new knowledge and consumer of it. And through their role in the intergenerational transfer of knowledge (i.e. teaching), they can influence future priorities, and clinical treatment practices within healthcare systems. As large and potentially well connected organisations, they have the potential to access considerable sums of start up capital, and spin-out a variety of new companies.

Not all teaching hospitals have the capacity to be an AHSC. Not all universities become an AHSC simply by linking their medical schools to a hospital, anymore than simply bolting on some labs to a hospital creates productive research capacity.

Virtually all countries, and regional economies, prioritise biomedical research probably within at least their top 5 areas of investment – despite frequently have significant deficiencies. While thinking that an AHSCs may be seen as the best local solution, local capacity can be lacking or weak. A critical worry is that AHSCs will be created from small, dysfunctional, and poorly performing institutions into large dysfunctional and poorly performing institutions, wasting public money, frustrating researchers and would-be entrepreneurs, weakening treatment capacity, and failing to deliver the innovations.

Internationally, AHSCs should be seen as sitting at the top of the healthcare pyramid, providing care from the simplest up to the most complex, and with unique expertise. While challenging to national/regional innovation strategies (which are often parochial in perspective), AHSCs should be at the forefront of international collaborations and integral to globalisation of knowledge transfer and evidence-based care.

Therefore, creating an AHSC as a driver of innovation and home to entrepreneur is not to be undertaken lightly.

One aspect of the AHSC that is particularly important to conceptualise and operationalise effectively is how they commercialise their intellectual property as a result of being both owners of problems, and creators of solutions to these problems. Risks here include inappropriate de-risking of research, premature efforts at commercialisation, confusion over ownership of the work itself, and conflict between institutional components on the methods to choose. These all track back into the AHSC itself, and how it is governed and how the executive suite and board, decide what can and cannot be done, or done well.

The paper draws on the author’s professional experience of working in an AHSC, working with an AHSC in thinking through their commercialisation strategy, and comparative policy research on commercialisation of research and strategies.

What is an Academic Health Science Centre?

AHSCs come in many forms. Understanding why particular arrangements are needed is important to ensuring that AHSCs are not created out of poorly performing component institutions. They are not simply an aggregation logic for pooling knowledge and capabilities. AHSCs can be vertically integrated providers through to a confederation of autonomous institutions. In some countries, the structure of AHSCs is accredited, mandated or otherwise designated, while in others, they emerge as a logical and rational solution to various research/ treatment/ teaching challenges. In addition, AHSCs also form networks for further collaboration.

Depending on national funding systems in higher education and in healthcare, AHSCs may have to deal with a large number of government ministries or agencies (in addition to health and higher education: social/community care, research councils, labour, industry/commerce ) which may be at differing levels in government (national/federal, state, local) as well as charitable and international sources. With this comes a diversity of public supervisory and oversight arrangements, which unsurprisingly may conflict on a number of levels: research priorities, service delivery objectives, degrees of institutional autonomy, and not to ignore the diversity of political interest which may complicate this further.

And within this mix, the challenge of coordination looms very large, to accommodate the autonomy of constituent parts, public accountability and institutional mission.

How should AHSCs organise themselves to conduct research and development for commercialisation?

AHSCs should be understood as accelerators of innovation. In virtue of owning the problems, they can disseminate new practices, enhance the evidence base for treatment options, and alter the very structure of service delivery itself.

Therefore, a critical issue for an AHSC is how they go about commercialisation, that is, operationalising the acceleration and dissemination of innovation and how they enable the entrepreneurial nature of researchers.

Particular challenges arise when higher educational institutions and healthcare organisations are state owned and run, with the result that staff (academics and researchers) are public employees or civil servants. This has the potential to create difficulties for individuals who may wish to be entrepreneurial yet retain their relationship to those issues which sparked the innovation in the first place.

Problems in this area have been raised by the French government with respect to the visibility and commercialisation of national research from state-owned laboratories and from the universities themselves. Institutional restrictions on commercialisation can create conflicts as in the UK where the universities pursue one approach while NHS hospitals use NHS/Department of Health commercialisation strategies.

External sources of seed capital are faced with constructing sensible funding arrangements in this environment. This has led institutions such as Karolinska in Sweden or Imperial Innovations in the UK to create an entrepreneurial subsidiary to deal with the commercialisation process. We are a long way from simple technology transfer here.

What are implications for policy: on research, on commercialisation and on higher education?

At some level, AHSCs are ill-defined in the European context, what their characteristics are, how they are organised and perform. Sensible investigation is needed to identify the performance, role and function of AHSCs in Europe, and to understand whether they are in fact a nexus of innovation or a quagmire of bureaucratic interference.

We need lessons and cases to draw on to understand how to structure appropriate innovation policies that may require the formation of high performing AHSCs that can be breeders of entrepreneurs. We also need to think beyond biomedical research as the potential scope of AHSCs includes innovations in systems and ways of working, health information technology and software, medical devices and not just medicines and so on. This nexus of innovation is very broad.

As someone who sees the challenge of AHSCs through both the institutional as well as policy lens, some key areas of priority are implicated and which are presented as conclusions:

  • Funding of AHSCs is not quite the same as funding the constituent parts, so national policies need to be harmonised if AHSCs are to become effective accelerators of innovation and enablers of entrepreneurs. This will raise coordination challenges for governments as the incentives they deploy may come from different pots of money with differing purposes.

  • Institutional design is important and only suitably high performing institutions should comprise an AHSC; this has implications for whether a national accreditation system should be used (England), or policies and initiatives to advance the role of AHSCs (Canada).

  • Commercialisation design is important and plays to national policies on public ownership of publicly funded research, whether state-owned research infrastructure should be disposed off to non-state ownership, with corresponding implications for the employment status of entrepreneurs. National taxation and entrepreneurial policies can be remarkably short-sighted and counter-productive; we really need to understand how bad some national legal frameworks are, and how good others are. AHSCs will be embedded in these legal frameworks, so how productive they can be is linked.

  • We really need to understand how national policies can encourage the introduction of high performing AHSCs where none exist, or prune the numbers of AHSCs if they have proliferated without also achieving high levels of (international) recognition and performance, or enable existing AHSCs to be real drivers of innovation.

NOTE:

Presented at the 2012 Entrepreneuriship conference in Maastricht in March 2012: see here for more details.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Sumerian contract: selling of a field and a ho...

A Department of Health contract with a private provider of healthcare

The Bureau for Investigative Journalism reports that £500 million was spent on private health clinics in the NHS that in their view represents poor value for money. No doubt commentators will point to the private aspects of these contracts as evidence that they failed. A few comments on their Report:

  1. The contracts were pre-paid block contracts, and in most cases the complement of procedures paid for were not used. Now whose fault is that? In the same way as hospitals do not go around soliciting business from GPs, these clinics need referrals. The question in my mind is was there so much capacity that the pre-paid procedures weren’t needed? How many patients did not get treated because of a failure to use these contracts? Of course the same thing can happen in the NHS, just people don’t see it as quite the same waste of money as when private contractors are involved. But they are the same.
  2. That the Department of Health is buying them back is the Department’s problem, which the taxpayer has to deal with. I’m not sure what the point of buying them is, especially since they will close and their treatment capacity lost to the doctors. Is there that much excess capacity in the NHS that they can take out that much capacity? The Report doesn’t clarify what is actually going to happen next. I don’t disagree with them about this being a poor use of money, but the decision to remove these facilities from available capacity is a bad decision, regardless of who runs them. The firms running them have excellent clinical performance track records in the main.
  3. The original contracts were commercially naive. But the UK’s NHS has a very poor track record with commercial suppliers, and so to get anyone interested at a time when there were serious shortages of capacity (and still are of course), they had to underwrite some of the risk. Of course, what might be thought of NHS facilities such as Foundation Trusts are increasingly not publicly owned as such but owned by the organisations that run them, and there are similar contracts with them. (GP premises are also private) Keep in mind, too, that pre-paid block contracts are an acknowledged (but poor) way for buying hospital services, so NHS facilities have also benefited from this — but just to be clear, many NHS facilities over-provide on these contracts, run out of money, usually 9 months into the contracts, then have to pull back in the last quarter. With payments based actual activity, you pay for what you buy, which explains in part why NHS facilities are running out of money — they cost more to run than the activity they are providing based on the income they derive from that activity. Nothing to do with being a public or private organisation, but a lot to do with how contracts are structured and of course how the hospital is managed. One hopes that more sophisticated contracting will emerge.
  4. NHS contracts are generally risk-free, that’s why there is the current fuss over competition in the NHS, as it would introduce risk. If risk were introduced, it would naturally level the playing field for private providers. But with risk-free public contracts, all the private providers wanted was the same contract conditions as NHS providers. The sensitivies around this, though, tend to favour a default assumption that the publicly owned, if that is strictly true anymore, institutions are better value-for-money than the private ones, when it comes to clinical activity.

This Report focuses on the expenditure of money without asking the next level of questions which go the heart of how and why money gets wasted in healthcare and why the NHS has so much difficulty with its contracts (let’s not get started on NPfIT).

But the Report is useful by illuminating the financial consequences of poor commercial decisions within the Department and the NHS. I just wonder whether there has been any learning as a result.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Herd mentality

Better this than trying something new

Steve Field was asked to lead the collective rethink by another group of vested interests of proposed NHS reform.  He apparently thinks, according to the Guardian, that the English NHS reforms are not workable. Apart from the rather pointless delay in getting on with reform, in the patient’s interest, rather than the interest of providers, he overstates the challenges faced by competition.

There is a general fear of what is called ‘creative destruction’ being applied to public institutions. But governments for years (think back to Thatcher, Blair) have tried to reform Whitehall, trim the scale of the public sector, and bring needed new thinking — the New Synthesis project is one example of people trying to rethink the public domain. Most of the changes in the NHS over the past two decades have been clearly in this direction, but regretfully, the Coalition failed to signal that they were tidying things up — who suggested all this needed primary legislation anyway as the SoS has enough power to do this anyway.  The push-back from entrenched public institutions can be unnerving to governments, in particular Coalitions, who need to keep their political dance partners happy.

So what to make of the comments in this interview:

  1. Head to head competition is unlikely across the bulk of England as integrated Foundation Trusts tend to be the sole and dominant provider in their areas. Major cities are the exception and the high operating costs, difficulty accessing services, and duplication of services is something that needs to be dealt with through targetted commissioning. Failure to do the hard bits will simply drive costs further skyward, and reward failure.
  2. There already is competition with the private hospitals, but they have their own interests, and launching a major assault on the NHS would be largely pointless — their customers are NHS consultants who provide their services to people who have taken out private insurance in order to opt-out of the NHS.
  3. So-called cherry picking is not a bad thing — aggregating similar cases in specialist units is clinically sensible as it produces better outcomes. Now why has the NHS resisted this sort of service rationalisation? If NHS providers are unable to sort out their clinical priorities they why shouldn’t a new entrant offer this service if they can do it better? I reviewed two hospitals once that duplicated services, and seemed unable to provide a single service between them. Outcomes weren’t good either.
  4. The ‘rules’ the Department of Health works with have rigged the market anyway in favour of incumbent NHS providers, whether they are providing a high quality service or not. There is real fear here in Government, but the patients’ priorities for a high quality service they can value may be more important than ideological considerations.  Perhaps we have to wait for the Facebook generation to start consuming health services for the mandarins to ‘get it’.
  5. Unbundling hospitals is something that can be done, but understanding the complex interaction of hospital-based services also needs to take account of the general shift toward out-patient services and increased focus on primary care, meaning hospitals aren’t going out of business soon, anyway. Field is right to point to shroud-waving, but misses the point that it was this shroud-waving that caused the panic in the Coalition.
  6. He uses the term ‘free market’ when in fact it won’t be, it will be a regulated market as there are very few free markets anyway (including in the US where there isn’t really a free market in their largely publicly/federally funded system of not-for-profits and loss-making hospital chains — try getting care from an HMO that you aren’t a member of).  The only existing health market regulator in the Netherlands seems to be managing just fine.
  7. Other countries have forms of competition between hospitals (France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, golly, this list could go on and on) and their systems haven’t crashed into some incomprensible quagmire of service chaos. Field overstates the problems, but it may betray some degree of fear that competition will unearth further underlying challenges that provider managers may be ill-equiped to deal with. There are some incredibly well-run hospitals in countries like the Netherlands, France, Switerland, Sweden, Belgium, not to ignore some of the best US hospitals but training in hospital management in the UK is not to world standards.
  8. That some NHS hospitals are badly run seems apparent, and something needs to be done about that, so removing motivation for an executive focus on financial and service performance seems a bad idea, at least to those who would be faced with the job of actually managing a hospital, and not just taking up office space.
  9. You don’t go out to tender for a trauma centre, as you need a catchment population in the millions to justify the necessary skills. Commissioners who don’t understand this shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the NHS.
  10. There are examples where novel solutions to challenges have been inspired, my favourite being the establishment of five world-class academic health science centres; all we need now is for them to assume a leadership role in driving excellence in management and patient care through the wider system.

I find it interesting that those who have the greatest stake in maintaining the status quo are those who are leading the listening exercise; why didn’t the Department of Health select perhaps an international panel or empanel a group of people with alternative perspectives? The vested interests run deep in the corridors of power.

As for some of the pending conclusions:

  1. no problem reserving a spot for nurses, but what about pharmacists, occupational therapists, and a host of others? Oh dear, patients and users?
  2. why hospital doctors on commissioning bodies; aren’t they part of the system that most would keep services in hospitals. There is serious risk of provider capture here. Including them because they might feel alienated is plain silly. The most alienated part of the NHS is the patient.
  3. inclusiveness is running mad here, and would make any ‘clinical cabinets’ virtually unworkable — when will they all have their group hug? I think it will just make work for consultants in organisational dynamics, who will be needed to help develop them, and keep them from constant bickering. The NHS spends too much time worrying about emotional intelligence of managers and whether their leaders are getting enough cheese. The proof is in the pudding and the leaders aren’t leading.
  4. GPs can acquire skills to commission anything they like, and to say otherwise is insulting and perhaps other words might be more applicable.  This is a lame excuse, otherwise we would never get anybody doing anything because one could always argue that they don’t know what they are doing and someone else could do a better job. The NHS Commissioning Board isn’t needed; it is just the continuing felt need for ‘national’ bodies and will hoard expertise that should be distributed around the system, to avoid the problem Field thinks exists.
  5. I doubt plans to reform medical or other professional education will be affected. This the job of the universities anyway, and they should get on with the job regardless. If that were true, then the NHS has colonised the education field inappropriately.
  6. The levy on private hospitals is unworkable. Half of nutritionists don’t work in the NHS — should Waitrose pay for the nutritionists they employ, should self-employed physiotherapists reimburse the NHS, and what about the 25% of nurses that work in the private sector.

What is clear is that listening exercise has beneficially galvanised those who didn’t have a problem with reforms to point out that this is now delaying essential service innovation — not the NHS innovates at the drop of a hat! France recently reformed its system. Anyone notice. Quick and likely to be quite effective.

I look forward to their final report, to see what changes I need to make in my comments above.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Surpluses (and deadweight loss) created by a m...

If only it were that simple!

The current debate in the UK, specifically England, on reforms of the publicly funded health service have raised the red-flag of privatisation. Hostility has centred in the main on private firms offering health services and the scope and meaning of ‘any willing provider’.  Signals from politicians are confusing given they are walzing back and forth across the dancefloor depending on criticisms. Indeed, there appears to be some risk that dance partners may change, as the Lambs, for instance, change sides to avoid slaughter in the arena of public opinion. Such self-interested face-saving aside, is there an issue to answer here?

Article 106(2) TFEU as a general interest exception: which involves invoking public interest grounds, specifically, “undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest … shall be subject to the rules contained in this Treaty … in so far as they application of such rules does not obstruct the performance … of the particular task assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the needs of the Community.” [Community here referring the EU, not the local community.]

In operationalising competition arrangements, the EU approach is built on simple foundations, of equal treatment, and that firms given special treatment cannot also be protected through public measures which favour them.  There has always been some debate about public monopolies and what has been called ’emanations of the state’, and through it all a recognition that state organisations are deemed to have a dominant position that they cannot abuse — perhaps more importantly, state organisations delivering a service cannot be protected by the government engaging in abusive market practices simply to protect them. It is certainly an abuse for a government to create a monopoly that cannot deliver the services required.

From an EU perspective, can states create a monopoly situation simply because they want to avoid competition in a particular area of the economy? Well, presumably yes, if it is of general economic interest, and if the prohibition of competition is necessary for the resulting bodies to do their job.

The ‘get-out’ clause is whether restriction on competition is necessary for the NHS to do its job. What is the job of the NHS?

If it is to procure health services from any “qualified” provider, then it is a procurement body and restrictions on competition would not be appropriate as this might lead to contracting for services from a subset of qualified providers who would be preferred on other than a level playing field — that public and private firms compete on an equal basis. The interesting question underlying the assumption is also that there would be market failure otherwise. But one test of market failure is that there are no providers willing to enter the market. But an any provider situation presupposes that isn’t true, that firms would enter the market and provide health services. So prohibiting competition effectively partitions the market in favour of public providers and that doesn’t seem to sit with the general EU competition tests. There is a subtle change in terminology that may be political but may be important (hah!): between any willing provider and any qualified provider — being willing isn’t enough, being qualified is, but can the determination of being qualified act to restrict access to the provision of health services, as being qualified may preclude organisations that might provide care, i.e. they are willing, but currently aren’t.  A bit like the only way to learn glass is fragile is to break it, the only way to find out if an organisation is qualified is to let it offer services. Of course, with an onus on qualified, there could be a presumption in favour of legacy providers, as obviously they are willing and qualified. (How many angels was that again?)

Does the EU treaty permit monopolists to abuse their dominant position by providing a service to a level less than is needed? In other words, can the purchasers purchase in such a way as to ignore lower cost/higher service level providers in order to protect the legacy NHS providers? Not really, as that violates the simple test of neutrality with respect to ownership status under competition law.

Granted that the purchasers could argue that financial controls are necessary as not everything would be affordable for everyone all at once, but the ECJ healthcare rulings have established a base line test: would the person involved eventually get treated? Saying ‘no’ is not an option for a state monopoly health service as that is called rationing and the ECJ has ruled that such decisions must be made on the basis of international clinical evidence, not administrative niceties.

So we are left with the question whether the prohibition of competition is necessary for the NHS to provide care. This is where it is necessary to decide whether the providers of health services in England are really state-owned entities, or simply contracted-in subcontractors. GPs in England have always been private businesses, though they have badged themselves as within the NHS since 1948, unlike community pharmacies, who similarly have virtually monopolistic contracts with the government, but are more readily perceived as not part of the NHS. It seems that as soon as you create a distinction between the delivery of services from the purchase of those services, you create the basic conditions for a market, for contestability, and by definition have eliminated the applicability of the market failure argument.  So the NHS delivers services of general economic interest, but it is not necessary for the delivery of that service to prohibit competition.

That means that the competition rules apply.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Mike recently chaired an event for UK companies to explore the opportunities for health information technology companies in Canada. Sponsored by UK Trade and Investment, GLE London, and the Canadian High Commission, the event attracted a group of firms with expertise in this sector, to hear presentations from EMIS and RIM and also learn about R&D tax credits, FP7 opportunities and partnering opportunities that are often not exploited.

Opportunities abound in Canada as it seeks to enhance the uptake of information technology in healthcare. Canadian physicians have a low adoption rate of office-based clinical systems, while connectivity between hospitals and primary care is not well developed. The focus in Canada has seen public investment, mainly linked to InfoWay, being poured into hospitals systems, with very little actually where the bulk of clinical encounters occur, namely in primary care. Slow adoption of electronic prescribing systems, coupled with often weak and poorly defined provincial electronic health record implementation strategies suggest that market entry opportunities lie in bringing order out of chaos and demonstrating clear benefits for clinician adoption.  The companies attending this event had that experience and could bring this level of structure to the market.

The partitioning of health markets into provincial systems means market entry strategies must pay particular attention to provincial characteristics and objectives, and incentives, such as tax credits, but also links to provincial infrastructure and innovation opportunities. There are pros and cons to each provincial system from a market entry strategy where the Alberta system has clearly centralised to Ontario with a purchaser/provider split and major reform underway in Quebec. There are also opportunities in specific market segments such as military health, prison health, workplace health and aboriginal health, which are frequently ignored as firms tend to focus on the publicly funded system as a whole and ignore these specific areas of opportunity and which offer market entry. Working with smaller Maritime provinces for instance offers scalable opportunities.

In addition, Canada’s position next to the US offers firms access through NAFTA, to take advantage of the huge stimulus in healthcare technology that is linked to health reform in the US; providers are early adopters and invest in technologies, including clinical systems so there are market-based opportunities around, for instance, clinical decision-support systems.

My own presentation focused on the opportunities working with Canadian academic health science centres [AHSC], which anchor provincial specialist service delivery, research and professional training. Since they combine research, teaching and service delivery, they offer partnering opportunities across a wide range of areas, and have sufficient commercial freedom to engage in alpha or beta partnering as well co-investment with start-ups. While many are still tied to the traditional technology transfer or licensing model, other ways of structuring deals are available.  They are valuable sources of new technologies for early stage investment, and with a relatively small early stage health investment community, the AHSCs are always looking for new people to have commercial discussions with. There is considerable interest by the federal government to ensure that early stage firms do stay in Canada so jobs and opportunities stay domestic, rather than being exported mainly to the US. But risk aversion and apparent shortage of second round financing sees many firms find their future with US investors. The removal, though, of disincentives in the income tax act which made life overly complicated for investors (similar to disincentives used in Australia) by the current government may encourage investors to feel more relaxed about the income tax regime.