ArticleSocial policy & administration2024
A decade of outsourcing in health and social care in England: What was it meant to achieve?
Article in Social policy & administration, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Freedom to Trade and Safeguarding the National Health Service (NHS) - Did the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement Safeguard the NHS?International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026Article
- Policy frameworks for promoting public hospital development in major economies: implications for China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- How outsourcing has contributed to England's social care crisis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- A decade of outsourcing in health and social care in England: What was it meant to achieve?Social policy & administration · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increased private provision of publicly funded health and social care over the last 75 years has been one of the most contentious topics in UK public policy. In the last decades, health and social care policies in England have consistently promoted the outsourcing of public services to private for-profit and non-profit companies with the assumption that private sector involvement will reduce costs and improve service quality and access. However, it is not clear why outsourcing often fails to improve quality of care, and which of the underlying assumptions behind marketising care are not supported by research. This article provides an analysis of key policy and regulatory documents preceding or accompanying outsourcing policies in England (e.g., policy document relating to the 2012 and 2022 Health and Social Care Acts and the 2014 Care Act), and peer-reviewed research on the impact of outsourcing within the NHS, adult's social care, and children's social care. We find that more regulation and market oversight appear to be associated with less poor outcomes and slower growth of for-profit provision. However, evidence on the NHS suggests that marketisation does not seem to achieve the intended objectives of outsourcing, even when accompanied with heavy regulation and oversight. Our analysis suggests that there is little evidence to show that the profit motive can be successfully tamed by public commissioners. This article concludes with how policymakers should address, or readdress, the underlying assumptions behind the outsourcing of care services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.