Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 1;43(1):69-108.
doi: 10.1215/03616878-4249814.

Resource Allocation for Equity in the British National Health Service, 1948-89: An Advocacy Coalition Analysis of the RAWP

Martin Gorsky  1 , Gareth Millward
Affiliations

Resource Allocation for Equity in the British National Health Service, 1948-89: An Advocacy Coalition Analysis of the RAWP

Martin Gorsky et al. J Health Polit Policy Law. .

Abstract

Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is a universal, single-payer health system in which the central state has been instrumental in ensuring equity. This article investigates why from the 1970s a policy to achieve equal access for equal need was implemented. Despite the founding principle that the NHS should "universalize the best," this was a controversial policy goal, implying substantial redistribution from London and the South and threatening established medical, political, and bureaucratic interests. Our conceptual approach draws on the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), which foregrounds the influence of research and ideas in the policy process. We first outline the spatial inequities that the NHS inherited, the work of the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP), and its new redistributive formula. We then introduce the ACF approach, analyzing the RAWP's prehistory and formation in advocacy coalition terms, focusing particularly on the rise of health economics. Our explanation emphasizes the consensual commitment to equity, which relegated conflict to more technical questions of application. The "buy-in" of midlevel bureaucrats was central to the RAWP's successful alignment of equity with allocative efficiency. We contrast this with the failure of advocacy for equity of health outcomes: here consensus over core beliefs and technical solutions proved elusive.

Keywords: Britain; NHS; National Health Service; advocacy coalition framework; equity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. The RAWP Formula.
Source: adapted from Royal Commission on the National Health Service, Allocating health resources: A commentary on the Report of the Resource Allocation Working Party (London, 1978), figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distance from RAWP formula target, Regional Health Authorities in England, 1979/80-1988/89.
Source: DHSS, Review of the Resource Allocation Working Party Formula, London: HMSO, 1988, Figure 1.1 p.6
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abel-Smith B, Titmuss RM. The Cost of the National Health Service in England and Wales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1956.
    1. Acton Society Trust. Hospitals and the State: Hospital Organisation and Administration under the National Health Service. Volume 5. The central control of the service. London: Acton Society Trust; 1958.
    1. Acton Society Trust. Hospitals and the State: Hospital Organisation and Administration under the National Health Service. Volume 6. Creative leadership in a state service, a general survey. London: The Acton Society Trust; 1959.
    1. Alford R. Health care politics: ideological and interest group barriers to reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1977.
    1. Anderson O. Medical Care: Its Social and Organizational Aspects. New England Journal of Medicine. 1963;269:839–43. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources