There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
To examine the roles of policy paradigms, in particular new public management and
regulated competition in different areas of health policy.
Quantitative and qualitative methods are used to assess the degree of success of regulated
competition in the Israeli context in terms of public understanding, trust, and the
basic viability of the system and in somatic as opposed to mental health policy.
As Israel's explicit priority setting processes in the area of somatic health services
have proceeded, the public indicates increased relative preference for treatments
adding quality of life, shifting from prioritizing extending life. The public and
physicians gave high scores to preventative screening. Between 1998 and 2001 levels
of awareness of the decision-making process rose and then retreated, perhaps due to
varying levels of decision-making activity. High levels of trust are evinced in health
policy agencies and in the priority setting process.
The Israeli case demonstrates that New Public Management (NPM) paradigms, such as
regulated competition, can successfully be deployed in attempting to manage health
care policy. However, as health policy moves beyond somatic health care into areas
requiring more inter-sector orientation, such as mental health, the appropriateness
of NPM models is called into question. However, the very success of models such as
regulated competition causes policy makers to resort to them instead of developing
new paradigms.