Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Public–private partnerships to improve primary healthcare surgeries: clarifying assumptions about the role of private provider activities

  • Oliver Mudyarabikwa (a1), Patrick Tobi (a2) and Krishna Regmi (a3)
Abstract
Aim

To examine assumptions about public–private partnership (PPP) activities and their role in improving public procurement of primary healthcare surgeries.

Background

PPPs were developed to improve the quality of care and patient satisfaction. However, evidence of their effectiveness in delivering health benefits is limited.

Methods

A qualitative study design was employed. A total of 25 interviews with public sector staff (n=23) and private sector managers (n=2) were conducted to understand their interpretations of assumptions in the activities of private investors and service contractors participating in Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) partnerships. Realist evaluation principles were applied in the data analysis to interpret the findings.

Results

Six thematic areas of assumed health benefits were identified: (i) quality improvement; (ii) improved risk management; (iii) reduced procurement costs; (iv) increased efficiency; (v) community involvement; and (vi) sustainable investment. Primary Care Trusts that chose to procure their surgeries through LIFT were expected to support its implementation by providing an environment conducive for the private participants to achieve these benefits. Private participant activities were found to be based on a range of explicit and tacit assumptions perceived helpful in achieving government objectives for LIFT.

Conclusion

The success of PPPs depended upon private participants’ (i) capacity to assess how PPP assumptions added value to their activities, (ii) effectiveness in interpreting assumptions in their expected activities, and (iii) preparedness to align their business principles to government objectives for PPPs. They risked missing some of the expected benefits because of some factors constraining realization of the assumptions. The ways in which private participants preferred to carry out their activities also influenced the extent to which expected benefits were achieved. Giving more discretion to public than private participants over critical decisions may help in ensuring that assumptions in PPP activities result in outcomes that match the anticipated health benefits.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Correspondence to: Patrick Tobi, Principal Research Fellow, Institute for Health and Human Development, University of East London, Stratford, London, E15 4LZ UK. Email: p.tobi@uel.ac.uk
References
Hide All
Aldred R. 2008: NHS LIFT and the new shape of neo-liberal welfare. Capital & Class 95, 3158.
Baggot R. 2011. Public health policy and politics, second edition. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Beck M., Toms S., Mannion R., Brown S., Fitzsimmons D., Lunt N. and Green I. 2009. The role and effectiveness of public-private partnerships (NHS LIFT) in the development of enhanced primary care premises and services. Report for the National Institute for Health Research Services Delivery and Organization Programme York: University of York.
Coiera E. 2003. Guide to health informatics, seconnd edition. Boca Raton. USA: CRC Press.
Department of Health (DoH) 2001: Public private partnerships in the NHS: modernizing primary care in the NHS: Local Improvement Finance Trust (NHS LIFT) prospectus. London: Department of Health.
Department of Health and Partnerships for Health (DoH/PfH) 2003: NHS LIFT strategic partnering agreement (Version 5). London: Department of Health.
Fitzsimmons D., Brown S. and Beck M. 2009: Does the UK Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) initiative improve risk management in public-private procurement? Journal of Risk and Governance 1, 137156.
Ham C. 2009: Health policy in Britain, sixth edition. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hunter D., Perkins, N., Bambra, C., Marks, L., Hopkins, T. and Blackman, T. 2011: Partnership working and the implications: issues affecting public health partnerships. London: NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation Programme.
Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) 2002: Building better partnerships. London: IPPR.
King’s Fund 2008: Under one roof: will polyclinics deliver integrated care?. London: King’s Fund.
Klein R. 2007: The new model NHS: performance, perceptions and expectations. British Medical Bulletin 2007, 112.
Mack N., Woodsong C., MacQueen K.M., Guest G. and Namey E. 2005: Qualitative research methods: a data collector’s field guide. Washington, DC: USAID/Family Health International.
Marchal B., Dedzo M. and Kegels G. 2010: A realist evaluation of the management of a well-performing regional hospital in Ghana. BMC Health Services Research 10, 114.
McGrath R.G. and MacMillan I.C. 2009: Discovery driven growth: a breakthrough process to reduce risk and seize opportunity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Publishing.
McKee M., Edwards N. and Atun R. 2006: Public private partnerships for hospitals. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 84, 890896.
Milburn A. 2004: The future of public-private partnerships. Speech to the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Forum Conference, Birmingham.
National Audit Office (NAO) 2005: Innovation in the NHS. London.
Pawson R. 2006: Evidence-based policy. A realist perspective. London: Sage.
Perrot J. 2006: Different approaches to contracting in health systems. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 84, 859866.
Pollit C. and Bouckaert G. 2000: Public management reform: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollock A.M. and Price D. 2006: Privatizing primary care. BMJ Editorial, August, pp. 565–566.
Renda A. and Schrefler L. 2006: Public-private partnerships models and trends in the European Union. Report for Director General Internal Policies of the European Union, Directorate of Economic and Scientific Policy, Brussels.
Sussex J. 2003: Public-private partnerships in hospital development: Lessons from the UK’s ‘Private Finance Initiative’. Research in Healthcare Financial Management 8, 5976.
Sykes, H.B. and Dunham, D. 1995. Critical assumption planning: A practical tool for managing business development risk. Journal of Business Venturing 10, 413424.
Taylor M. and Craig G. 2002: Dangerous liaisons: local government and the voluntary and community sectors. In Glendinning, C., Powell, M., and Rummery, K., editors, Partnerships, New Labour and The Governance of Welfare, Chapter 9. Bristol: The Policy Press. ISBN 9781861343390.
World Bank 2006: Public-private partnership units: what are they, and what do they do? Financial and Private Sector Development, Vice Presidency Note Number 311.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Primary Health Care Research & Development
  • ISSN: 1463-4236
  • EISSN: 1477-1128
  • URL: /core/journals/primary-health-care-research-and-development
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 32 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 246 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd May 2017 - 23rd January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.