This thesis analyses the findings of empirical research carried out in three case study UK health
authorities in 1996-97, using repeat interviewing of senior managers. It aimed to test three
competing hypotheses:
i. Markets are one possible system for allocating scarce resources. The process of contract
specification in a complex quasi-market is likely to make rationing more explicit than it
would be in a hierarchical system
ii. In the complex context of the NHS the quasi-market may fail to produce clear contracts
and unambiguous allocations, because of prohibitive transaction costs, political costs and
ethical costs of greater explicitness
iii. Other pressures in favour of explicitness (e.g. rising expenditure, effectiveness evidence
and the Patient's Charter) may be irresistible, whatever structural form the NHS takes.
The complex relationship between explicit rationing, the internal market and other factors is
discussed. Results suggest the quasi-market has contributed to the growth in explicit rationing,
notably by decoupling purchasers and providers from their previously shared responsibility to
manage resources. In other respects the market has speeded up or magnified the effect of other
factors which would or could have happened anyway. Concern to control rising expenditure has led
to more explicit decisions but is now rekindling interest in the value of fixed budgets for providers
and implicit clinical decision-making. Factors such as the Patient's Charter have also had an
independent effect on greater explicitness. Implicit rationing remains significant.
The implications for health care rationing of government proposals to abolish the internal market
are examined. The results suggest that explicit rationing will probably continue to grow, but with a
greater emphasis on explicit criteria to guide clinicians in determining who gets treatment, rather
than the exclusion of whole services. The retention of some form of commissioner provider split
may also exercise continuing pressure towards explicitness