Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
expansion or
contraction?
Declan Gaffney a Health
Policy and Health Services Research Unit, School of Public Policy,
University College London, London WC1H 9EZ, b Social Welfare Research Unit, University
of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7XA, c Department of Accounting, University
of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL
Correspondence to: Allyson Pollock
allyson.pollock@ucl.ac.uk
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Before 1948, building the hospital and community health service was primarily a local government responsibility and new investment depended on local authorities' ability to meet the cost of borrowing. The "depressed areas," which had the worst health status, were inevitably disadvantaged. Investment patterns during the interwar years contributed to the inequitable distribution of the infrastructure, which was, according the official historian of the NHS, a "ramshackle and largely bankrupt edifice."1 The 1946 act led to the nationalisation of the inherited hospital infrastructure and the centralisation of the responsibility for financing its improvement within the ministry of health. NHS hospital building was to be financed by central government grants and funded out of general taxation and national insurance contributions.
The NHS initially made little impact on its inherited infrastructure
problems because public sector investment in the postwar years was
concentrated on education and housing. Aneurin Bevan, among others,
suggested that spending controls could
Read all Rapid Responses