An analysis of ophthalmology services in Finland - has the time come for a Public-Private Partnership?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We studied the prerequisites for Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in the context of the Finnish health care system and more specifically in the field of ophthalmology. PPP can be defined as a more or less permanent cooperation between public and private actors, through which the joint products or services are developed and in which the risks, costs and profits are shared.</p> <p>The Finnish eye care services system is heterogeneous with several different providers and can be regarded as sub-optimal in terms of overall resource use. What is more, the public sector is suffering from a shortage of ophthalmologists, which further decreases its possibilities to meet the present needs. As ophthalmology has traditionally been a medical specialty with a substantial private sector involvement in service provision, PPP could be a feasible policy to be used in the field. We thus ask the following research question: Is there, and to what extent, an open window of opportunity for PPP?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In addition to the previously published literature, the research data consisted of 17 thematic interviews with public and private experts in the field of ophthalmology. The analysis was conducted in two stages. First, a literature-based content analysis was used to explore the prerequisites for PPP. Second, Kingdon's (1995) multiple streams theory was used to study the opening of the window of opportunity for PPP.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Public and private parties reported similar problems in the current situation but defined them differently. Also, there is no consensus on policy alternatives. Public opinion seems to be somewhat uncertain as to the attitudes towards private service providers. The analysis thus showed that although there are prerequisites for PPP, the time has not yet come for a Public-Private Partnership.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Should the window open fully, the emergence of policy entrepreneurs and an opportunity for a win-win situation between public and private organizations are required.</p

What is the 'dominant model' of British policymaking? Comparing majoritarian and policy community ideas

The aim of this article is to help identify the fundamental characteristics of the British policymaking system. It highlights an enduring conflict of interpretation within the literature. On the one hand, most contemporary analysts argue that the ‘Westminster model' is outmoded and that it has been replaced by modern understandings based on ‘governance'. On the other, key ideas associated with the Westminster model, regarding majoritarian government and policy imposition, are still in good currency in the academic literature, which holds firm to Lijphart's description of the United Kingdom as a majoritarian democracy. These very different understandings of British government are both commonly cited, but without much recognition that their conclusions may be mutually incompatible. To address this lack of comparison of competing narratives, the article outlines two main approaches to describe and explain the ‘characteristic and durable' ways of doing things in Britain: the ‘policy styles' literature initiated by Richardson in Policy Styles in Western Europe and the Lijphart account found in Democracies and revised in 1999 as Patterns of Democracy. The article encourages scholars to reject an appealing compromise between majoritarian and governance accounts

Health Politics

OECD countries adopt different ways of financing and providing healthcare. Each model of governance of the health system embodies a particular vision of the role of the state and the private sector, of the border between individual and collective responsibility, of the right degree of freedom to be recognized by the citizen, and of the idea of social equity. The strategic choices made in the healthcare field, and the reasons why one model of healthcare organization is adopted rather than another, can be interpreted by referring to health politics. Adopting this perspective means starting from the assumption that healthcare policies emerge from an arena in which multiple actors, the bearers of different visions and interests, confront one another in an attempt to make their demands prevail. The policy mixes that are adopted, therefore, reflect the relationships of force between the players in the field, the alliances between the interest groups, the mood of public opinion, and the advantage of the individual political forces. In other words, focusing on health politics means rebuilding the \u201cpolitical game\u201d that determines healthcare decisions (as well as nondecisions). The topic of healthcare politics is investigated in this chapter with respect to three fundamental components: ideas, interests, and institutions