Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
Throughout his article on Managing Demand for Secondary Services Nigel Edwards makes the point that changes in incentives for providers, specifically the assumption of greater financial risk, will lead to better demand management.
As an ex-corporate banker now at medical school I can only wonder where this might lead. In the corporate world there is a great deal of evidence that people who are risk neutral or risk adverse, catagories into which the majority of doctors/medical managers tend to fall, will only take on greater financial risk if there is sufficent monetary reward. In essence a government cannot "have it's cake and eat it to" - any "risk transfer benefit" realised by the government will need to be shared between the government and the ultimate health care provider.
Will society tolerate a system where a few risk managers end up making large profits because they are willing to undertake the risk of carrying the public's health?
Or to phrase it another way - does government have a role in health provision beyond that of a mere mass contractor/payor? It seems the logical conclusion of the article would be they don't and they should not.