Exit, voice, governance and user-responsiveness: The case of English primary care trusts
Section snippets
Governance and user-responsiveness in the public sector
Hirschman's classic analysis (1970) contrasts exit and voice as two ‘recuperation’ mechanisms making organisations responsive to their users. Health policies in many countries (e.g. USA, much of the EU, Australia, New Zealand) increasingly rely on voice and, still more, exit mechanisms for improving responsiveness to users. Absence of the institutional conditions necessary for these mechanisms would fatally weaken such policies. Using new evidence, this paper considers how far the necessary
Methods
The method for testing the proposition that Hirschman's analysis now requires revision, and for pursuing the other aims list above, is to operationalise Hirschman's analysis and, then, compare it with an empirical account of the relevant UK health polices and their implementation. A preliminary conceptual elaboration of Hirschman's analytic framework (Section 3) enables one to categorise concrete, observed governance structures as instances of exit, voice or neither. The UK policy documents
Voice, exit and governance structures
A preliminary to applying the broad concepts of ‘voice’ and ‘exit’ is to operationalise them in terms of observable governance structures and organisational processes.
Organisational-level examples of ‘voice’ mechanisms include user involvement in health policy and decision making in national-level health organisations or federations (as in Germany) and in sick-funds originating from occupational or religious groups (e.g. in Belgium and Switzerland). Another mechanism is to make health managers
English NHS policy
NHS policies for promoting user responsiveness (Department of Health (2000), Department of Health (2001), Department of Health (2003), Department of Health (2004)) and the Health and Social Care Act, 2001 emphasise democratic accountability (DH, 2001), publication of NHS performance assessments (Department of Health (2001), Department of Health (2003)), rights of redress and patient advocacy (DH, 2001), community empowerment (DH, 2004), choice (DH, 2004) and changing PCTs’ organisational
Policy assumptions
Labour government rhetoric invokes both voice and exit; ‘the voices of patients and the public, together with greater choice, will play an important role in shaping the health service in future’ (DH, 2004, p. 79). During the study period the emphasis was as noted on voice. Indeed, all eleven implementation mechanisms listed in Appendix A concern voice not exit, eight at the organisational level, although one of them (linking NHS complaints procedures to the Commission for Health Improvement
User responsiveness through hierarchical governance
Hierarchical governance structures exist both within PCTs and between a PCT and the higher-level NHS bodies (Strategic Health Authority (SHA), DH) who manage it. Within PCTs, managerial authority rests with a Board (of Directors) which through the Chief Executive line-manages PCT employees (nurses, paramedical, managerial and ancillary workers; and, exceptionally, salaried doctors). As explained, the main voice mechanism within PCT hierarchies was the appointment of lay non-executive directors
User responsiveness through quasi-market governance
PCTs commission providers in three quasi-markets—for acute and specialised mental hospital services; for a large minority of general practices through local (PMS) contracts; and for private primary care services, most often paramedical care and nursing homes.
What these quasi-markets contributed towards user responsiveness can be described swiftly because it was so slight. Each PCT is sole commissioner for its resident population who have no exit to another NHS commissioner. PCTs can decide not
User responsiveness through networked governance
PCTs rely on network governance in their relationships with local government (especially social services); with users’ and other voluntary organisations which also provide primary care; and with GPs.
In each PCT the PEC co-ordinated a local network of all GPs, mediating their relationship with the PCT Board. Irrespective of quasi-market arrangements, these networks were the main link between PCTs and general practices. Persuasion and knowledge management were the means by which PCTs could
An exception
In the PCTs described above, networks favoured local GP voices, quasi-markets gave greatest influence to NHS trusts, and national government almost exclusively influenced NHS hierarchies. For NHS managers the benefits (including penalties avoided) in heeding these non-user voices were far greater than those for responding to users. Other studies (Buckland & Gorin, 2001; Gilbert, 2003; Pickard & Smith, 2001) and at least one policy document (DH, 2004) corroborate this general picture of slow,
Voice and exit in quasi-markets
We found no reports of quality changes in NHS primary care stimulating either exit or voice on any substantial scale. However, Hirschman's theory would survive that finding if the quality of NHS primary care had just not changed much during that period. Users participating in PCT decision making were ‘alert’ to service quality, but few in number (barely into double figures, PCT3-excepted). Neither can we test whether more alert users are first to desert the public sector, because there is so
Policy implications
As revised, Hirschman's analysis suggests certain policies for the design of health system governance structures as recuperation mechanisms. Even when an exit mechanism is used to make providers user-responsive, it would be simplistic to counterpose voice and exit too crudely.
As a first-level mechanism for making professional proxies responsive to user demands, exit appears more practicable in services treating relatively minor, short-term health problems. Voice appears more practicable for
References (36)
- et al.
Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)
Social Science & Medicine
(1997) - et al.
‘Patient’ voices, social movements and the habitus: How psychiatric survivors ‘speak out’
Social Science & Medicine
(2001) - et al.
Talking contracts and talking care: Managers and professionals in the British National Health Service internal market
Social Science & Medicine
(2000) - et al.
Community representatives: Representing the ‘community’?
Social Science & Medicine
(1998) - et al.
Doctor–patient communication about drugs: The evidence for shared decision making
Social Science & Medicine
(2000) - Anon (2004). Continuity of care: patients’ and carers’ views and choices in their use of primary care services....
A ladder of citizen participation
Journal of the American Institute of Planners
(1969)- et al.
Back to basics: Does decentralisation improve health system performance? Evidence from Ceara in northeast Brazil
International Journal of Public Health
(2004) - et al.(2001)
Unspeaking the patients’ experience: Variations in the NHS patient experience in England
The NHS plan: A plan for investment
Reforming the NHS complaints procedure—A listening document
Building on the best: Choice, responsiveness and equity in the NHS
The NHS improvement plan: Putting people at the heart of public services
Le marketing-management hospitalier
Inequality in consultations with general practitioners
Preserving community in health care
Journal of Health Policy, Politics and Law
Cited by (28)
Exit, voice or neglect: Understanding the choices faced by doctors experiencing barriers to leading health system change through the case of Sierra Leone
2022, SSM - Qualitative Research in HealthPatient choice and provider competition – Quality enhancing drivers in primary care?
2019, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :This enables competition among healthcare providers, predicted to lead to improved quality when quality of services can be observed, prices are regulated and reimbursement rates are above providers' profit margins (Barros et al., 2016; Brekke et al., 2014). Quasi-markets often employ patient choice of healthcare provider (Pickard et al., 2006). Patient choice has been motivated by different arguments, for example, that it increases patients’ autonomy and freedom, and that patients are best able to judge what is best for them (Wilmot, 2007; Van de Walle and Marien, 2017).
Street-level diplomacy? Communicative and adaptive work at the front line of implementing public health policies in primary care
2017, Social Science and MedicineResidents' perceptions of effective community representation in local health decision-making
2012, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :Representatives with expertise in the community, but not necessarily in health, may be an important component of adequate representation. Another variation on participatory processes from the United Kingdom relates to continuing trends in privatization and market-based policy designs that highlight distinctions between health consumers and community members (or citizens) and the resultant implications for community participation (Pickard, Sheaff, & Dowling, 2006; Stanton, 2004). Some argue that particular market-based policy designs can best empower residents by bypassing representatives (and government agencies) and giving them direct consumer purchasing power to exercise choice and affirmatively “exit” choices they dislike.
Nursing students and the issue of voice: A qualitative study
2011, Nurse Education TodayCitation Excerpt :This is because exit is a fairly crude response, whereas voice can be more subtle. Similarly, Pickard et al. (2006) point out that of the two mechanisms, voice is more precise and can be more challenging to an institution than exit. Importantly, it can also be a challenge to those who exercise it; an issue that will be explored more fully later.