Emergency transfer from independent hospitals to NHS hospitals: risk, reasons and cost

Private choices, public costs: Evaluating cost-shifting between private and public health sectors in New Zealand

New Zealand's dual public-private health system allows individuals to purchase health services from the private sector rather than relying solely upon publicly-funded services. However, financial boundaries between the public and private sectors are not well defined and patients receiving privately-funded care may subsequently seek follow-up care within the public health system, in effect shifting costs to the public sector. This study evaluates this phenomenon, examining whether cost-shifting between the private and public hospital systems is a significant issue in New Zealand. We used inpatient discharge data from 2013/14 to identify private events with a subsequent admission to a public hospital within seven days of discharge. We examined the frequency of subsequent public admissions, the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients and estimated the direct costs of inpatient care incurred by the public health system. Approximately 2% of private inpatient events had a subsequent admission to a public hospital. Overall, the costs to the public system amounted to NZ$11.5 million, with a median cost of NZ$2800. At least a third of subsequent admissions were related to complications of a medical procedure. Although only a small proportion of private events had a subsequent public admission, the public health system incurred significant costs, highlighting the need for greater understanding and discussion around the interface between the public and private health systems.

Motivation and values of hospital consultants in south-east England who work in the national health service and do private practice

In the UK, a small private health care sector has always existed alongside the national health service (NHS). The conventional assumption is that doctors who work as salaried employees of the NHS are guided in their clinical practice by professional values which encourage them to put their patients' interests first. A common suspicion is that doctors undertaking fee-for-service practice in the private sector are motivated by self-interest, with commitment to their patients compromised by consideration for their purse. The great majority of hospital consultants are salaried employees of the NHS, but most also undertake some private practice. This paper uses findings from an interview study of 60 surgeons and physicians engaged in dual practice of this kind to investigate their reasons for working in this way and look at how they reconcile their personal, professional and public sector values and responsibilities with the temptations of the market. The existence of the private sector and their own engagement in it was regarded by almost all respondents as a net benefit, not only to themselves and their private patients, but also to the NHS, so long as they handled it properly. The interviews revealed a complex range of beliefs and assumptions through which these doctors justify their activities and a variety of informal principles for dealing with such conflicts of interest as they acknowledge. Neither their values nor their actions can be adequately explained using generic concepts of professional self-interest or public service values without consideration of what such concepts represented in the specific social, economic, professional and policy context of health care in south-east England at the time of the study.