Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
American Behavioral Scientist
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SPARER, M. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Myths and Misunderstandings

Health Policy, the Devolution Revolution, and the Push for Privatization

MICHAEL S. SPARER

Columbia University

For more than 200 years, policy makers and policy analysts have struggled to determine an appropriate division of labor between local governments, the states, the federal government, and the private sector. This issue will be considered through the lens of health care policy. What does privatization mean in the context of health care? Is the federal government delegating to the states increased authority over the nation's health care system? The conclusion is that health policy is a particularly slippery lens through which to view these issues. The substance of privatization and devolution does not match the rhetoric. On the contrary, both intergovernmental division of labor and public-private partnership have become increasingly blurred.

American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 43, No. 1, 138-154 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/00027649921955209


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Health Policy PlanHome page
A. S Miranda
Intergovernmental health policy decisions in Brazil: cooperation strategies for political mediation
Health Policy Plan., May 1, 2007; 22(3): 186 - 192.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Policy Politics Nursing PracticeHome page
C. C.-H. Chen and S. S. Cohen
Rooms without Rules: Shaping Policies for Assisted Living Facilities
Policy Politics Nursing Practice, May 1, 2002; 3(2): 188 - 197.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Behavioral ScientistHome page
P. V. ROSENAU
Introduction: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Public-Private Policy Partnerships
American Behavioral Scientist, September 1, 1999; 43(1): 10 - 34.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Behavioral ScientistHome page
M. C. ROM
From Welfare State to Opportunity, Inc.: Public-Private Partnerships in Welfare Reform
American Behavioral Scientist, September 1, 1999; 43(1): 155 - 176.
[Abstract] [PDF]