Grit Kor, Zuiderent-Jerak Teun
Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Postbox 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Thematic Studies - Unit of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Health Care Anal. 2017 Sep;25(3):242-259. doi: 10.1007/s10728-015-0292-0.
Many Western countries have introduced market principles in healthcare. The newly introduced financial instrument of "care-intensity packages" in the Dutch long-term care sector fit this development since they have some characteristics of a market device. However, policy makers and care providers positioned these instruments as explicitly not belonging to the general trend of marketisation in healthcare. Using a qualitative case study approach, we study the work that the two providers have done to fit these instruments to their organisations and how that enables and legitimatises market development. Both providers have done various types of work that could be classified as market development, including creating accounting systems suitable for markets, redefining public values in the context of markets, and starting commercial initiatives. Paradoxically, denying the existence of markets for long-term care and thus avoiding ideological debates on the marketisation of healthcare has made the use of market devices all the more likely. Making the market invisible seems to be an operative element in making the market work. Our findings suggest that Dutch long-term care reform points to the need to study the 'making' rather than the 'liberalising' of markets and that the study of healthcare markets should not be confined to those practices that explicitly label themselves as such.
许多西方国家已在医疗保健领域引入市场原则。荷兰长期护理部门新推出的“护理强度套餐”这一金融工具符合这一发展趋势,因为它们具有一些市场手段的特征。然而,政策制定者和护理提供者将这些工具明确定位为不属于医疗保健市场化的总体趋势。我们采用定性案例研究方法,研究这两家提供者为使这些工具适应其组织所做的工作,以及这如何推动并使市场发展合法化。两家提供者都做了各类可归类为市场发展的工作,包括创建适合市场的会计系统、在市场背景下重新定义公共价值以及开展商业举措。矛盾的是,否认长期护理市场的存在并因此避免关于医疗保健市场化的意识形态辩论,反而使市场手段的使用更有可能。让市场变得无形似乎是使市场发挥作用的一个有效因素。我们的研究结果表明,荷兰长期护理改革表明有必要研究市场的“形成”而非“自由化”,并且医疗保健市场的研究不应局限于那些明确将自己标榜为市场的做法。