Micro and Small Businesses’ Satisfaction with the UK Energy Market: Policy Implications

While householders’ ability to navigate the domestic retail energy market has generated considerable debate, little attention has been given to micro and small businesses’ (MSBs) purchasing of energy. This paper provides the first academic assessment of MSBs’ satisfaction with the UK’s retail energy market. Using survey data from the UK energy regulator we find that while intermediaries are central to MSBs switching energy supplier, the quantity of marketing contact received from them is a key source of dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction with marketing contact has direct policy relevance as the Competition and Market Authority’s 2016 Energy Market Investigation recommended that a database of ‘disengaged’ MSBs be established to enable marketing communications from rival suppliers to prompt MSBs to switch. We also query whether the need for more MSB engagement is obvious, given the prevalence of multi-year energy contracts among MSBs, suggesting that the ‘optimal’ switching level of MSBs likely differs from that of householders. Our evidence suggests that there could be benefits from increased regulatory oversight of intermediaries’ behaviour. Furthermore we note that existing data fail to address an issue of importance for regulatory decision making: the overlap between households and MSBs and the potential choice for MSBs between domestic and non-domestic contracts. Overall, the paper exemplifies the types of insights that can be obtained by regulators providing wider access to the surveys they commission. We recommend that UK regulatory agencies share anonymised raw survey data by default to enhance the transparency, and potentially quality, of their decision making

Resale price maintenance: Explaining the controversy, and small steps towards a more nuanced policy

The paper sets out why we consider that the legal framework in the EU amplifies what are in reality relatively small differences in thinking around RPM. Primarily, this is because it asks economists, in the name of legal certainty, to draw a false dichotomy between agreements and practices which are harmful and those which are beneficial. We then provide a summary of the literature on RPM and, based on this thinking, set out a few small steps that might be taken towards a more nuanced approach to assessing RPM, within a 'presumed illegality' framework without sacrificing the beneficial legal certainty that the current approach brings.Competition Policy; RPM; Resale Price Maintenance

Consumer Overdose and why consumer protection is good for competition

In Competition Overdose, authors Ariel Ezrachi and Maurice Stucke identify some important and compelling situations in which the free market is not delivering good outcomes, and how this might be addressed. In this short article, I focus on one particular aspect of this wider regulatory environment, consumer protection. Competition Overdose spotlights the importance of consumer protection for ensuring that competition delivers good outcomes, and I discuss and confirm this. However, I also make an additional and important point, not covered in the book: consumer protection is good for competition itself

Patient-reported outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease:a measurement of effect in research and clinical care

The measurement of outcomes is key in evaluating healthcare or research interventions in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In patient-centred care, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are central to this evaluation. In this review, we provide an overview of validated, adult disease-specific PROMs developed for use in IBD. Our aim is to assist clinicians and researchers in selection of PROMs to measure outcomes in their patient cohort. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments database of systematic reviews was the primary resource used to identify PROMs used in IBD. Search terms were ‘Crohn’s disease’, ‘ulcerative colitis’, and ‘IBD’. Seven systematic reviews were identified from this search. In addition, the publication by the IBD Core Outcome Set Working Group was used to identify further PROMs. Three systematic reviews were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. From the five included systematic reviews, we identified 21 PROMs and their shortened versions. In conclusion, it does not appear that any one PROM is entirely suitable for both research and clinical practice. Overall, the IBDQ-32 is most widely used in research but has the limitation of cost, whereas the IBD-Control has been recommended in the clinical core outcome set