BACKGROUND: The push towards a 'primary care-led' National Health Service (NHS) has far-reaching implications for the future structure of the NHS. The policy involves both a growing emphasis on the role of primary care practitioners in the commissioning of health services, and a change from hospital to primary and community settings for a range of services and procedures. Although the terminology has changed, this emphasis remains in the recent Scottish Health Service White Paper and its English counterpart. AIM: To consider three questions in relation to this policy goal. First, does the evidence base support the changes? Secondly, what is the scale of the changes that have occurred? Thirdly, what are the barriers to the development of a primary care-led NHS? METHOD: Programme budgets were compiled to assess changes over time in the balance of NHS resource allocation with respect to primary and secondary care. Total NHS revenue expenditure for the 15 Scottish health boards was grouped into four blocks or 'programmes': primary care, secondary care, community services, and a residual. The study period was 1991/2 to 1995/6. Expenditure data were supplied by the Scottish Office. RESULTS: Ambiguity of definitions and the absence of good data cause methodological difficulties in evaluating the scale and the appropriateness of the shift. The data that are available suggest that, at the aggregate level, there have been changes over time in the balance of resource allocation between care settings: relative investment into primary care has increased. It would appear that this investment is relatively small and from growth money rather than a 'shift' from secondary care. In addition, the impact of GP-led commissioning is variable but limited. CONCLUSION: General practitioners' (GPs') attitudes to the policy suggest that progress towards a primary care-led NHS will continue to be patchy. The limited shift to date, alongside evidence of ambivalent attitudes to the shift on the part of GPs, suggest that this is a policy objective that may not be achieved.
BACKGROUND: The push towards a 'primary care-led' National Health Service (NHS) has far-reaching implications for the future structure of the NHS. The policy involves both a growing emphasis on the role of primary care practitioners in the commissioning of health services, and a change from hospital to primary and community settings for a range of services and procedures. Although the terminology has changed, this emphasis remains in the recent Scottish Health Service White Paper and its English counterpart. AIM: To consider three questions in relation to this policy goal. First, does the evidence base support the changes? Secondly, what is the scale of the changes that have occurred? Thirdly, what are the barriers to the development of a primary care-led NHS? METHOD: Programme budgets were compiled to assess changes over time in the balance of NHS resource allocation with respect to primary and secondary care. Total NHS revenue expenditure for the 15 Scottish health boards was grouped into four blocks or 'programmes': primary care, secondary care, community services, and a residual. The study period was 1991/2 to 1995/6. Expenditure data were supplied by the Scottish Office. RESULTS: Ambiguity of definitions and the absence of good data cause methodological difficulties in evaluating the scale and the appropriateness of the shift. The data that are available suggest that, at the aggregate level, there have been changes over time in the balance of resource allocation between care settings: relative investment into primary care has increased. It would appear that this investment is relatively small and from growth money rather than a 'shift' from secondary care. In addition, the impact of GP-led commissioning is variable but limited. CONCLUSION: General practitioners' (GPs') attitudes to the policy suggest that progress towards a primary care-led NHS will continue to be patchy. The limited shift to date, alongside evidence of ambivalent attitudes to the shift on the part of GPs, suggest that this is a policy objective that may not be achieved.