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.
BMJ 2008;336:844-845 (19 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.39541.622917.80
Should focus on how to motivate institutions as much as what good quality care looks like
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In 2002, a bitter argument raged in the letters pages of the BMJ. It followed the publication of a study by Feachem and colleagues comparing an American managed care organisation, Kaiser Permanente (North California), and the NHS.1 The NHS fared less well on several indicators of effectiveness and efficiency of care. Feachem and colleagues (and others) concluded that a combination of competition, better information systems, and other incentives—not just level of funding—explained Kaisers better performance.1 The study was quickly attacked on methodological and ideological grounds.2
Intrigued like many others, a group at the Kings Fund looked more closely at the care provided for people with long term conditions at Kaiser and four other top performing managed care organisations in the United States. We found systematic highly proactive and personalised care—nothing in theory that could not be provided in the NHS, although it frequently is not. Our conclusion was that
Jennifer Dixon, director
1 Nuffield Trust, London W1G 7LP
jennifer.dixon@nuffieldtrust.org.uk
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+