| |
| |
| |
Centre for Policy on Ageing | |
 | |
|
Allocating resources for health and social care
— the significance of rurality | | Author(s) | Sheena Asthana, Alex Gibson, Graham Moon |
| Journal title | Health & Social Care in the Community, vol 11, no 6, November 2003 |
| Pages | pp 486-493 |
| Keywords | Health services ; Services ; Needs [elderly] ; Grant allocation ; Costs [care] ; Rural areas. |
| Annotation | Whilst an allowance is made for sparsity in the allocation of resources for social care services in England, rurality is not a significant factor in health resource allocation. As health and social services are required to work in partnership across a range of areas, this inconsistency becomes increasingly visible. Differences in funding mechanisms also raise the question of why it is legitimate to make adjustments for rurality in the distribution of some public services, but not for others. This paper considers the case for a rural premium in health resources for four reasons. First, there is evidence of systematic biases in the current NHS formula in favour of urban areas in the way "need" is expressed. Second, insufficient account is taken of additional costs associated with rural service provision. Third, rural primary care trusts (PCTs) and social services departments (SSDs) can no longer tolerate lower levels of service. Lastly, England is the only UK country that does not make a major adjustment for rurality in its NHS formula. Thus, little has been done to counter marked service deprivation or to provide adequate services to vulnerable people in rural areas. (RH). |
| Accession Number | CPA-031107204 A |
| Classmark | L: I: IK: QCG: QDC: RL |
Data © Centre for Policy on Ageing |
|
| ...from the Ageinfo database published by Centre for Policy on Ageing. |
| |
|
|