Stewardship Actions for Market issues in the National Disability Insurance Scheme: A Review of the Evidence

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Evidence Base

Australia and New Zealand School of Government

Subject: Management

GET ALERTS

eISSN: 1838-9422

DESCRIPTION

50
Reader(s)
140
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Related articles

VOLUME 2019 , ISSUE 1 (Sep 2019) > List of articles

Stewardship Actions for Market issues in the National Disability Insurance Scheme: A Review of the Evidence

Eleanor Malbon * / Daniel Reeders / Gemma Carey / Axelle Marjolin

Citation Information : Evidence Base. Volume 2019, Issue 1, Pages 1-14, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/eb-2019-001

License : (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Published Online: 05-September-2019

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

As the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) progresses through its implementation, calls for stewardship of the new disability market increase. As a personalisation scheme, the condition of the disability service markets are tied to the ability for people with disability to access care services. Market conditions such as thin markets, market gaps and market failure threaten the public policy goals of increased choice and control for NDIS participants. We review the evidence for interventions and other market stewardship actions that can be taken by government to steward a quasi-market that provides care or welfare services. We assess the breadth and quality of the evidence base and apply these findings to the case of the Australian NDIS. We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to take actions to steward the NDIS market, but that considerable resources and governance capacity are needed to do so.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is widely regarded as one of the most ambitious reform agendas in recent Australian history. Internationally, it is part of a growing trend towards ‘personalised’ care, where individuals have more say in the design and type of supports they receive from government (Needham, 2010). While the NDIS promises to improve the lives of more than 400 000 Australians with a disability and their families (Productivity Commission, 2011), the scheme has been marred by a range of implementation challenges (ANAO, 2016; Carey et al., 2017a, 2017b; Productivity Commission, 2017). In particular, there has been much concern over thin markets and market gaps (Carey et al., 2017a; Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, 2018; NDIA, 2016a; Productivity Commission, 2017, 2011). Under the choice-of-provider model adopted by the NDIS implementers, meaningful choice and control for participants depends on local ‘market structure,’. That is, the availability of multiple, competing providers. Market deficiencies, such as ‘thin’ markets and market gaps, therefore threaten the public policy goal of increasing choice and control for people with disability (Carey et al., 2017c). More broadly, they present challenges for equity; individuals in particular geographic areas or with less common needs may receive poor quality services or no service at all (Carey et al., 2017c).

In response to growing concerns over the development of markets within the NDIS, key bodies such as the Productivity Commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) have begun discussing the need for ‘market stewardship’ (NDIA, 2016a; Productivity Commission, 2017). Market stewardship broadly refers to efforts to address market deficiencies, such as thin markets, market gaps or other market failures, and is also known as market shaping (Carey et al., 2017a; Gash et al., 2013). While the need for market stewardship is widely recognised, in the scheme design it is clearly envisioned that the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) will only intervene when it can be demonstrated that market failure has occurred (Productivity Commission, 2011). This poses difficult questions about how the NDIA can detect market deficiencies and what strategies it can use to address them. It also means the NDIA must attempt market stewardship before commissioning services to address market gaps. In this paper we draw together the international literature on effective quasi-market interventions in order to shed light on this problem. We analyse interventions that have been effective or have theoretical promise internationally and determine their applicability to the NDIS context.

Background

Markets have become a common feature of public sector service provision internationally (Cutler and Waine, 1997; LeGrand and Bartlett, 1993). So-called ‘quasi-markets’ proliferated under new public management approaches to public service provision – a paradigm that emphasises the use of market philosophies and business sector practices in the delivery of government funded services (LeGrand and Bartlett, 1993; Osborne, 2010). Proponents of new public management argued that markets could deliver services more efficiently than government; through competition governments can improve service quality while reducing costs (Girth et al., 2012; LeGrand and Bartlett, 1993). Supply-side factors have been accompanied by demand-side drivers including the desire to give citizens a greater choice in the design and delivery of the services they utilise (Girth et al., 2012). Markets, it has been argued, give citizens greater choice through facilitating services provision by a diverse range of providers (rather than one government provider) (LeGrand, 2007).

In recent years, traditional market mechanisms such as voucher systems, that are familiar to social welfare history, has emerged under the guise of ‘personalisation’ programs. In personalised schemes, users ‘purchase’ services that meet their needs (in some cases via vouchers rather than budgets) (LeGrand, 2007; Needham and Glasby, 2015; Williams and Dickinson, 2016). The trend towards personalisation has occurred in the UK, Germany, Scandinavia and the Netherlands, amongst others (Askheim, 1999; Askheim et al., 2014; Brennan et al., 2017). One aim of the personalisation agenda is to move away from a ‘one size fits all’ service model, to a situation where citizens can choose services that best meet their needs – sometimes referred to as ‘particularism’ (Anttonen, 2012; Carey and Crammond, 2017). Another goal is to remove the split between purchasers and consumers of services that is the defining characteristic of ‘quasi-markets’, in the hope of encouraging end-users to ration or ‘trade off’ services to achieve their most-valued goals (Productivity Commission, 2011).

Australia has recently embarked on one of the most ambitious personalisation schemes in the form of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Under the NDIS, a AU $22 billion scheme, approximately 460 000 individuals who have a significant and permanent disability will receive personalized funding budgets (Collings et al., 2016; Productivity Commission, 2011). The scheme will be fully implemented across Australia by 2020, including in urban, rural and remote localities and across a diverse range of disability types and ages (Collings et al., 2016; Productivity Commission, 2011). Under the new model individuals are given funding packages, determined by their level of need and self-defined goals, with which to purchase services (Productivity Commission, 2011). While personalised budgets have been used in other countries, the Australian experience differs in several important ways.

The NDIS has been designed as a market system from the ground-up, rather than introducing an element of competition into existing funding arrangements. It is not one market for a single broad type of service, but rather a complex structure of markets for different supports. The scheme covers all people with significant and permanent disability and aims to cover all their reasonable and necessary support needs (other than those covered by public or private insurance schemes or Australia’s universal health system). This complex market structure may produce hidden market deficiencies, such as market gaps (a lack of meaningful alternatives) and thin markets (economically inefficient markets). As a national scheme, its geographical reach is considerable, presenting unique challenges in responding to needs of participants in regional and remote areas. There is no easily accessible block-funded alternative for participants with more complex needs, a feature in many personalised care schemes in countries such as the UK (Carey et al., 2018a; Malbon et al., 2018). Under the design of the scheme, the NDIA can only intervene to commission services where market failure has been demonstrated. Finally, the NDIS uses fixed prices and actuarial modelling in the allocation of resources to citizens, conducted through a federally owned statutory agency – the National Disability Insurance Agency (Productivity Commission, 2017, 2011). This means that interventions and potential levers are different in the NDIS than international counterparts.

Despite the growth of public service markets in various forms, problems persist (Lowery, 1998). Many examples of monopolies, market gaps or other market failures have emerged, from childcare (Sumsion, 2012) to employment (Considine and O’Sullivan, 2015), and disability (Needham, 2013). As a result, there is growing interest internationally in determining the most effective ways to intervene in public service markets (personalized or other) through ‘stewarding’ or ‘market shaping’ efforts (Trevor L. Brown et al., 2006; Cogan et al., 2005; Gash et al., 2013; Girth et al., 2012; Hudson, 2015; Scotton, 1999). In their seminal work on the topic, Gash and others (2013) outlined a range of principles for market stewardship:

  • Engage closely with users, provider organisations and others to understand needs, objectives and enablers of successful delivery

  • Set the ‘rules of the game’ and allowing providers and users to respond to the incentives this creates

  • Constantly monitoring the ways in which the market is developing and how providers are responding to these rules, and the actions of other providers

  • Adjust the rules of the game in an attempt to steer the system (much of which is, by design, beyond their immediate control) to achieve their high-level aims (Gash et al., 2013, p. 6)

While these principles are informative they tell us little about the actual practice of market intervention (i.e. what specific actions do government agencies take to shape the market). Hence, there is a need to expand on these principles through identifying and/or determining specific stewardship actions.

Methods

We searched both the peer-reviewed and grey literature in order to understand what market-shaping activities have been tried and detect patterns in what is, and is not, effective. We took a thematic approach – synthesizing qualitative insights from empirical case studies (Dixon-Woods et al., 2005). Thematic approaches to meta-analysis seek to uncover concepts and their meanings from the data (rather than pre-determining them), using interpretive approaches to ground the analysis in that data (i.e. existing studies). Thematic approaches are useful for hypothesis generation and explanation of particular phenomena, though provide less of a picture of the context and quality of the individual studies that comprise the review (Dixon-Woods et al., 2005).

The review sought to answer the questions:

What thin market interventions in social care have been shown to be effective?

What different attempts have been made to intervene in thin social care markets?

Searches were run in the following databases: Google, Google Scholar, HMIC, Medline, Assia Proquest, EBSCO, Social Care Online, Social Sciences Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts EMBASE, ISI Citation Index. The following search strings were used:

  • (Thin market OR market gap OR undersupply OR underserv* OR market failure OR asymmetry) AND (care OR quasi-market OR quasi market)

  • (Market stewardship OR market shaping OR market levers OR market management) AND care)

  • (Personalisation OR personal* care OR personal* budgets OR individual service funds OR individual* care OR individual* budget) AND market

  • (interven* OR stewardship OR management) AND (quasi-market OR quasi market OR public service market OR care market OR employment market)

Inclusion criteria were: publication between 1990-2018 (selected on the basis of market reforms commencing in 1990), empirical research, published in English and meets the criteria for relevance or rigour. Articles that did not meet the criteria for relevance or rigour were excluded:

relevance – whether it can contribute to theory building and/or testing; and

rigour – whether the method used to generate that particular piece of data is credible and trustworthy.

In total, 675 sources were identified and 63 met our selection criteria (see Fig. 1 and Table 1). Sources were coded qualitatively, with insights into what interventions were tried to address which market gaps extracted. Eight of these papers were ‘intervention research’, which sought to understand the effectiveness of a specific market intervention. The remaining empirical research was not specifically focused on determining the outcomes of market shaping activities but nonetheless provided important insights. Given the small number of empirical sources, commentary and/or theoretical contributions were also analysed for potential market interventions. These are presented and discussed separately in this paper. The papers examined a wide variety of market areas (health, education, social care) and approaches (i.e. contract and commissioning, personalisation).

Table 1

Quality and number of source

10.21307_eb-2019-001-t001.jpg
Figure 1

Prisma diagram of search results

10.21307_eb-2019-001-f001.jpg

Once data extraction was complete, findings were analysed against the NDIA’s statement on ‘Market Opportunity and Intent’ (NDIA, 2016b), which outlines potential stewardship responsibilities and governance. The report provides an overview of how markets within the NDIS will ideally function (see Fig. 2). Stewardship activities identified in the literature were mapped against these market goals in order to identify ways in which government could steward markets in accordance with particular aims. An additional category was added – stewardship activities that were aimed specifically at addressing equity. This was added because of growing concern around equity in the scheme.

Figure 2

Goals of NDIS markets (NDIA, 2016b)

10.21307_eb-2019-001-f002.jpg

Quality of evidence

Findings from the research are summarised in Table 2. To construct the table, stewardship activities were analysed against the goals of the NDIS markets (NDIA, 2016a), and where corresponding evidence was not found through the review, cells were left blank. We also added a section on shaping markets for equity. Our analysis took account of the quality of evidence provided, noting where interventions and findings were empirically grounded and where there were non-empirical theoretical suggestions. The literature on care market stewardship activities was too small to focus solely on personalisation markets, hence the findings outlined in Table 1 are drawn from efforts to intervene in any form of quasi-market focused on care. In our discussion of how such approaches could be leveraged within the context of the NDIS, our recommendations attempt to unpack how to adapt stewardship activities within a personalised scheme. However, it is worth noting that stewardship activities (empirical and theoretical) are sourced from a wide range of markets, which is a potential limitation of the study.

Table 2

Stewardship activities and their application to the NDIS

10.21307_eb-2019-001-t002.jpg

Findings

Our review found that information sharing stewardship activities are most often recommended in commentaries about market shaping, with one empirical study to support this (Destler and Page, 2010). Information sharing attempts to address information asymmetry in the market (i.e. where providers do not know levels of demand, or users cannot identify services), and is a very common form of market intervention in non-quasi markets. A wide range of stewardship activities were suggested or trialled to address market asymmetry, from market position statements (Bjornstad and Brown, 2004; Department of Health and Social Care, 2018; Feiock, 2002; Hake, 2016; Institute of Public Care, 2016; Needham et al., 2018), establishment of e-markets (Institute of Public Care, 2016; NDIA, 2016a), provider promotion events (Institute of Public Care, 2016) and open accounting within schemes (Needham et al., 2018). However, we also found that careful attention must be paid to the quality of market position statements and the information provided. If it is not robust, it risks being unhelpful to providers and market shaping efforts will be ineffective (Broadhurst and Landau, 2017).

A number of studies highlighted the limitations of central management of care markets. While not a personalisation market, Temple (2006) provides an important analysis of centralised efforts to direct markets. Temple’s study highlights the ways in which the limited market knowledge at the ‘top’ can mean that efforts to steward markets go awray. In this instance a market gap was identified by government, and providers were incentivised to move into a particular service area through a targeted funding program. However, with its limited information government wrongly identified the gap and demand did not support the new levels of supply generated. The money also had tight timelines on expenditure, which is frequently the case with targeted funding calls. This created inefficiencies in the market which, coupled with low demand, created poor quality services. Temple (2006) argues that a better approach would be to have increased market intelligence and information in order to allow each provider the opportunity to consolidate their own market position.

Issues with central management of quasi-markets also emerged in the area of pricing (Allen and Petsoulas, 2016; Gash et al., 2013). Within the NHS, flexible pricing and decentralisation of authority regarding pricing enabled commissioners to help organisations to re-purpose or shift their services to meet different market demands (Allen and Petsoulas, 2016). This was done by enabling a financial buffer through pricing. While overall this led to a rise in costs, the authors argue that the benefits in terms of market responsiveness and effectiveness were worthwhile. Gash and others (2013) also found that central price setting tends to be at the wrong levels. Rather, given the geographical spread and diversity of needs that quasi-markets are required to service, decentralisation of pricing is likely to enable markets to be more responsive and effective.

The review also identified a range of stewardship activities that could be ineffective or damaging. The most notable is Temple (2006), discussed previously, which offers a warning against central management of quasi-markets. Several other studies found that using third parties to boost choice/control and competition was ineffective (though using brokerage was effective to address issues of equity or niche needs) (Abbott et al., 2009; Sheaff et al., 2013). Providers were found to sometimes compete for brokers or third parties rather than clients (Sheaff et al., 2013). However, one intervention study (Schmidt et al., 2016) found third party brokers to be effective.

We also found instances where stewardship activities complicates other market issues. For example, boosting regulation to deal with quality issues reduced market competition (Hotz and Xiao, 2011). Similarly, when subsidies are offered there is some evidence that providers create services which are not fit-for-purpose (Temple, 2006; Boocock, 2017). Again, this points to the limits of centrally managed systems. Some authors observe that it is difficult for governments to set effective incentives centrally without creating perverse market behaviour or outcomes (Temple, 2006; Boocock, 2017). Similarly, central price setting boosted service quality (as organisations have to compete on the basis of quality, rather than price) (Cooper et al., 2011), while other studies highlighted the importance of flexible price setting for addressing market gaps (Allen and Petsoulas, 2016; Schmidt et al., 2016)

These findings highlight that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to market shaping, or hard and fast rules. With regard to market shaping efforts as a whole, Destler and Page (2010) surveyed local areas undertaking a range of market shaping activities. They found that while overall governments which undertook market shaping activities had some impact statistically, there were no clear patterns regarding types or combinations of stewardship activities and their effectiveness. This research is an important reminder that markets are highly interdependent, and actions need to be responsive to different contexts.

Discussion

In this section we relate our findings to the context of the NDIS quasi-market. The NDIS is a program in active implementation and as such, the market stewardship or shaping actions are part of an emerging and iterative approach, shifting in response to market needs (NDIA, 2016b). Our review initiated a number of suggestions for market shaping for the NDIS quasi-market, particularly for enhancing equity in the scheme.

Price is one of the major levers for market shaping in the NDIS. There is a complicated system of price setting in the NDIS. Firstly, there are different pricing rules depending on the sort of budget administration that a participant undertakes. NDIS budgets can be administered by the participant (‘self-managed’), or be managed by the NDIS, or a combination of both (Productivity Commission, 2011). If an NDIS participant is ‘self-managed’ then they can negotiate prices directly with a service provider, using NDIA prices as a guide. When a participant’s budget is administered in conjunction with NDIA the prices are far less flexible and at times fixed (Productivity Commission, 2017). The majority of participants are NDIA managed or co-managed, with self-managed participants making up just 7% of NDIS participants (NDIA, 2017), meaning that the majority of the NDIS quasi-market operates under fixed prices. Secondly, these prices are set by the NDIS actuaries, a body separate to both the NDIA and to the Department of Social Services. According to the (NDIS Act, 2013) expenditures must ‘represent value for money’ and the ‘long term sustainability of the scheme’(NDIS Act, 2013) (section 34). As Carey et al. (2018a, p. 4) point out, this means that “the NDIA is not authorised to set prices in response to market issues”. Further, many of the stewardship activities examined in our review such as Allen and Petsoulas (2016) and Schmidt et al. (2016), also require there to be flexible pricing arrangements that are responsive to local market conditions. At this stage, it is (at best) unclear whether the NDIS actuaries can take local market conditions into account when price setting, and it is certainly not legislated that they must. We suggest expanding the criteria for price setting in the NDIS Act (2013), or finding another way to ensure that pricing can be responsive to local market failures and thin markets. This could include devolving price setting responsibilities to those with more market intelligence.

In addition to pricing, another major lever for market shaping is information sharing about local quasi-market conditions (supply and demand information). Our review found empirical work by Destler and Page (2010), in the context of thin market management for autonomous schools, which demonstrated positive impacts when information sharing about market conditions. Further, much theoretical work supported information sharing in quasi-markets (Bjornstad and Brown, 2004; Department of Health and Social Care, 2018; Feiock, 2002; Hake, 2016; Institute of Public Care, 2016; Needham et al., 2018). In line with theory and empirical research, the NDIS could release data or more detailed position statements on supply and demand at a local level across Australia (i.e. LGA level nationwide). This will enable service providers to position themselves to meet gaps in the market where service provision is dangerously low or absent. There has been concern that such detailed market position statements will pave the way for ‘profiteering’ providers, so we recommend coupling detailed market position statements with powerful regulation over the quality of service provided through the NDIS Quality and Safeguard Commission.

Information sharing about market conditions is not possible if the data on market conditions in the NDIS is not being collected. While the trials of the NDIS included a full evaluation by Mavromaras et al. (2018) (of some market conditions, but also of equity in access and qualitative responses from participants, providers and other stakeholders), the national scheme has no government funded independent processes for monitoring and evaluation beyond financial oversight (Carey et al., 2018a). This presents issues for market stewardship, but also for external and democratic scrutiny of the scheme. Currently, the NDIS participants that are missing out on their NDIS supports because they cannot secure services are uncounted (Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, 2018). This gap in data collection, or transparency of data, in the NDIS presents major barriers to increased information sharing, something we know is crucial for shaping robust quasi-markets.

Market shaping must go beyond ensuring minimum protections and efficient use of resources and extend to ensuring that public good is fairly distributed. As a national policy, the Australian federal government is ultimately accountable for maintaining equity of access to the NDIS (Malbon et al., 2019; Malbon et al., 2016). Simultaneously, we also know that problems of equity in access are arising in many areas of the NDIS (Carey et al., 2017; Mavromaras et al., 2018). In our review a number of stewardship activities were tested or suggested for increasing equity in quasi-markets (Baxter et al., 2013; Boocock, 2017; Brown and Potoski, 2004; Schmidt et al., 2016). The recommendations from these papers include:

Not all of these stewardship activities are appropriate for the NDIS system. For example, additional subsidies for vulnerable groups is more difficult to operationalise than additional payments for providers who provide service to more vulnerable (and potentially more resource intensive) NDIS participants. Similarly, additional funding in transport budgets for people living in remote and regional areas is necessary (Carey et al., 2017c). Our review also indicates that the newly established Quality and Safe Guards Commission must have the power to respond to complains about service quality. This would mean the creation of a formal process and method of recourse between the Commission and the NDIA, which could require revisions to the NDIS Act.

We find that it may be useful to think of NDIS funds as a set of ‘vouchers’ that can only be used to fund specific care and support activities, rather than a traditional marketisation system. This is true in the sense that NDIS funds may only be spent on NDIS approved activities and providers. We note that rules around NDIS funds are more flexible for ‘self-managed’ NDIS participants (12% of participants) who may choose to pay a service provider whether the provider is registered with the NDIS or not, and at a price negotiated between the provider and client. So while the NDIS is not a ‘perfect’ voucher system, some direction may be found in the management of markets in voucher systems such as avoiding information failures (Steuerle et al., 2000) as well as the more complex aspects of quality and safeguarding that the NDIA faces (Daniels and Trebilcock, 2005, p. 226):

…one of the principal virtues of voucher systems is the competition that they are intended to elicit on the supply-side of voucher-assisted markets, thus requiring a significant number of competing providers and relatively free entry. Most of the rationales for any form of government intervention at all in the programmatic sectors under review are implicated in determining what restrictions, if any, should be placed on qualifying suppliers and new entrants

(i.e. distributive justice, social externalities, and paternalism).

Above all, our review points to the significant capacity required within the main implementation body for the NDIS (the NDIA) in order to carry out such a diverse array of market shaping and stewarding functions across the many markets and sub-markets nationally. A lack of capacity has been noted by several high profile reviews of the agency (ANAO, 2016; Commonwealth Ombudsman, 2018; Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, 2018) and acknowledged by government (Australian Government, 2018). Greater resources, and a lifting of the staffing cap, on this agency is critical to securing effective market stewardship.

While we have made a range of recommendations regarding the stewardship of the NDIS, research on adaptive governance highlights that stewardship activities need to shift as implementation shifts (Carey and Crammond, 2015). That is, an approach that may work well at one stage of the implementation of the NDIS could over time become a constraint. There is a need for responses to be as adaptive as the market they seek to influence (Carey and Harris, 2016).

Conclusion

Many principles for market shaping and stewarding have been developed in an effort to ensure quasi-markets meet their diverse policy goals. This review has sought to go beyond these principles and collate actual evidence of what governments and government agencies can do in practice to steward quasi markets. Based on the results we sought to develop understanding of how this evidence relates specifically to the markets under the NDIS. We found a number of key activities the main implementation agency of the NDIS could undertake, in addition to other critical bodies such as the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. However, in order to effectively pursue these activities across jurisdictions, providers and population groups considerable resources are needed.

References


  1. Abbott, S, Procter, S, and Iacovou, N 2009. NHS purchaser-provider relationships in england and wales: the view from primary care. Social Policy & Administration 43 1: 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2008.00642.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  2. Ahgren, B 2010. Competition and integration in Swedish health care. Health Policy 96 2: 91–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.01.011.
    [CROSSREF]
  3. Allen, P, and Petsoulas, C 2016. Pricing in the English NHS quasi market: a national study of the allocation of financial risk through contracts. Public Money & Management 36 5: 341–348, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2016.1194080.
    [CROSSREF]
  4. ANAO [Australian National Audit Office] 2016. National Disability Insurance Scheme - Management of Transition of the Disability Services Market, Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra.
  5. Anessi-Pessina, E, Cantu, E, and Joninii, C 2004. Phasing out market mechanisms in the Italian national health service. Public Money and Management 24 5: 309–316, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2004.00439.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  6. Anttonen, A 2012. Universalism and the challenge of diversity in Anttonen, A, Haikio, L, and Stefansson, K (Eds), Welfare State, Universalism and Diversity, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1–15.
    [CROSSREF]
  7. Ardley, B, and Chen, NC 2017. Strategies and servicescapes: delivering user-focused health care in Europe and China. Strategic Change 26 3: 273–280, https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2128.
    [CROSSREF]
  8. Askheim, OP 1999. Personal assistance for disabled people–the Norwegian experience. International Journal of Social Welfare 8 2: 111–120.
    [CROSSREF]
  9. Askheim, OP, Bengtsson, H, and Richter Bjelke, B 2014. Personal assistance in a Scandinavian context: similarities, differences and developmental traits. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 16 sup 1: 3–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2014.895413.
    [CROSSREF]
  10. Australian Government 2018. Australian Government response to the joint standing committee on the national disability insurance scheme (NDIS) report: transitional arrangements for the NDIS. Australian Government, Canberra, www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2018/response_to_the_joint_standing_committee_on_the_ndis-transitional_arrangements_.pdf.
    [CROSSREF]
  11. Australian Parliament Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS 2018. Transitional Arrangements for the NDIS, Australian Parliament, Canberra.
  12. Azimi, T, Franzel, L, and Probst, N 2017. Seizing market shaping opportunities for vaccine cold chain equipment. Vaccine 35 17: 2260–2264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.12.073.
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  13. Bagley, C, Woods, P, and Glatter, R 1996. Barriers to school responsiveness in the education quasi-market. School Organisation 16 1: 45–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/0260136960160105.
    [CROSSREF]
  14. Barber, SL, Kumar, A, Roubal, T, Colombo, F, and Lorenzoni, L 2018. Harnessing the private health sector by using prices as a policy instrument: lessons learned from South Africa. Health Policy 122 5: 558–564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.018.
    [CROSSREF]
  15. Barile, S, Saviano, M, and Polese, F 2014. Information asymmetry and co-creation in health care services. Australasian Marketing Journal 22 3: 205–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2014.08.008.
    [CROSSREF]
  16. Baxter, K, Glendinning, C, and Greener, I 2011. The implications of personal budgets for the home care market. Public Money & Management 31 2: 91–98, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2011.560702.
    [CROSSREF]
  17. Baxter, K, Rabiee, P, and Glendinning, C 2013. Managed personal budgets for older people: what are English local authorities doing to facilitate personalized and flexible care? Public Money & Management 33 6: 399–406, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2013.835998.
    [CROSSREF]
  18. Beach, D 2017. Personalisation and the education commodity: a meta-ethnographic analysis. Ethnography and Education 12 2: 148–164, https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2016.1247738.
    [CROSSREF]
  19. Bel, G, Dijkgraaf, E, Fageda, X, and Gradus, R 2010. Similar problems different solutions: comparing refuse collection in the Netherlands and Spain. Public Administration 88 2: 479–495, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01808.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  20. Bennett, C, and Ferlie, E 1996. Contracting in theory and practice: some evidence from the NHS. Public Administration 74 1: 49–66, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1996.tb00857.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  21. Beresford, P 2008. Whose personalisation? Soundings 40 8: 8–17, https://doi.org/10.3898/136266208820465146.
    [CROSSREF]
  22. Bergmark, A 2008. Market reforms in Swedish health care: normative reorientation and welfare state sustainability. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 3: 241–261, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhn010.
    [CROSSREF]
  23. Bertolin, J. CG 2011. The quasi-markets in higher education: from the improbable perfectly competitive markets to the unavoidable State regulation. Educação e Pesquisa 37 2: 237–248.
    [CROSSREF]
  24. Bjornstad, DJ, and Brown, MA 2004. A market failures framework for defining the government’s role in energy efficiency. Joint Institute for Energy and Environment 2 3: 1–35.
  25. Bloom, G, Henson, S, and Peters, DH 2014. Innovation in regulation of rapidly changing health markets. Globalization and Health 10 1: 53–54, https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-10-53.
    [CROSSREF]
  26. Bloom, G, Kanjilal, B, and Peters, DH 2008. Regulating health care markets in China and India. Health Affairs 27 4: 952–963, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.4.952.
    [CROSSREF]
  27. Boocock, A 2017. Caveats for the new localism in further education – why the use of principal–agent solutions at the local level will not work. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 22 2: 289–313, https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2017.1314685.
    [CROSSREF]
  28. Brennan, C, Rice, J, Traustadóttir, R, and Anderberg, P 2017. How can states ensure access to personal assistance when service delivery is decentralized? A multi-level analysis of Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 19 4: 334–346, https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2016.1261737.
    [CROSSREF]
  29. Broadhurst, S, and Landau, K 2017. Learning disability market position statements, are they fit for purpose? Tizard Learning Disability Review 22 4: 198–205, https://doi.org/10.1108/TLDR-03-2017-0011.
    [CROSSREF]
  30. Brown, TL, and Potoski, M 2004. Managing the public service market. Public Administration Review 64 6: 656–668, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00413.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  31. Brown, TL, Potoski, M, and Van Slyke, DM 2006. Managing public service contracts: Aligning values, institutions, and markets. Public Administration Review 66 3: 323–331, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00590.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  32. Carey, G, and Crammond, B 2015. What works in joined-up government? An evidence synthesis. International Journal of Public Administration 38 Nos 13-14: 1020–1029, https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.982292.
    [CROSSREF]
  33. Carey, G, and Crammond, B 2017. A glossary of policy frameworks: the many forms of “universalism” and policy “targeting.”. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 71 3: 303–307, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204311.
    [CROSSREF]
  34. Carey, G, and Harris, P 2016. Developing management practices to support joined-up governance: practices to support joined-up governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration 75 1: 112–118, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12169.
    [CROSSREF]
  35. Carey, G, Dickinson, H, Fletcher, M, and Reeders, D 2018a. Australia’s national disability insurance scheme: the role of actuaries, The Oxford International Handbook of Public Administration for Social Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  36. Carey, G, Dickinson, H, Malbon, E, and Reeders, D 2017a. The vexed question of market stewardship in the public sector: examining equity and the social contract through the Australian national disability insurance scheme. Social Policy & Administration 54 1, https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12321.
    [CROSSREF]
  37. Carey, G, Kay, A, and Nevile, A 2017b. Institutional legacies and “sticky layers”: what happens in cases of transformative policy change? Administration & Society, 0095399717704682, https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399717704682.
    [CROSSREF]
  38. Carey, G, Malbon, E, Reeders, D, Kavanagh, A, and Llewellyn, G 2017c. Redressing or entrenching social and health inequities through policy implementation? Examining personalised budgets through the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme. International Journal for Equity in Health: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0682-z.
    [CROSSREF]
  39. Cleveland, G, and Krashinsky, M 2009. The nonprofit advantage: producing quality in thick and thin child care markets. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28 3: 440–462, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20440.
    [CROSSREF]
  40. Cogan, JF, Hubbard, RG, and Kessler, DP 2005. Making markets work: five steps to a better health care system. Health Affairs 24 6: 1447–1457, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.24.6.1447.
    [CROSSREF]
  41. Collings, S, Dew, A, and Dowse, L 2016. Support planning with people with intellectual disability and complex support needs in the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 41 3: 272–276, https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1151864.
    [CROSSREF]
  42. Commonwealth Government of Australia 2013. National disability insurance scheme act 2013. No. 20, www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00934.
  43. Commonwealth Ombudsman 2018. Report on the national disability agency’s handling of reviews, report nr. 3. Canberra, https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/83981/NDIS-NDIA-Final-report-on-administration-of-reviews-under-the-Act.pdf.
  44. Considine, M, and O’Sullivan, S 2015. Contracting-out Welfare Services, Wiley Blackwell, UK.
  45. Cooper, Z, Gibbons, S, Jones, S, and McGuire, A 2011. Does hospital competition save lives? Evidence from the English NHS patient choice reforms. The Economic Journal 121 554: F228–F260, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02449.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  46. Crawford, JL 2010. Imperfectly competitive health care markets - the issue is fair pricing. Academy of Health Care Management Journal 6 2: 87–89.
  47. Cutler, T, and Waine, B 1997. The politics of quasi-markets how quasi-markets have been analysed and how they might be analysed. Critical Social Policy 17 51: 3–26.
    [CROSSREF]
  48. Daniels, R, and Trebilcock, M 2005. Rethinking the Welfare State: Government by Voucher, Routledge, Abingdon.
  49. Dassiou, X, Langham, P, Nancarrow, C, Scharaschkin, A, and Ward, D 2015. Public service markets: their economics, institutional oversight and regulation. Palgrave Communications 1 15053: 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.35.
    [CROSSREF]
  50. Destler, K, and Page, SB 2010. Building supply in thin markets: districts’ efforts to promote the growth of autonomous schools. Working Paper: Western Washington University Series 1 3: 1–28.
  51. Dixon, J, Le Grand, J, and Smith, P 2003. Can Market Forces be used for Good?, King’s Fund, London.
  52. Dixon-Woods, M, Agarwal, S, Jones, D, Young, B, and Sutton, A 2005. Synthesising qualitative and quantiative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 10 1: 45–53.
    [CROSSREF]
  53. Feiock, R.C 2002. A quasi-market framework for development competition. Journal of Urban Affairs 24 2: 123–142, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9906.00118.
    [CROSSREF]
  54. Gash, T, Panchamia, N, Sims, S, and Hotson, L 2013. Making Public Service Markets Work: Professionalising Government’s Approach to Commissioning and Market Stewardship, Institute for Government, London, http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/making-public-service-markets-work.
  55. Girth, AM, Hefetz, A, Johnston, JM, and Warner, ME 2012. Outsourcing public service delivery: Management responses in noncompetitive markets. Public Administration Review 72 6: 887–900.
    [CROSSREF]
  56. Grubb, D 2003. Points of comparison between Australia’s job network and the Dutch market for reintegration services. Australian Journal of Labour Economics 6 2, p. 357.
  57. Hake, B 2016. Regulatory governance of “training markets”, “market failure”, and “quasi” markets: historical dimensions of the post-initial training market in The Netherlands. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults 7 2: 171–189, https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela9080.
    [CROSSREF]
  58. Hotz, VJ, and Xiao, M 2011. The impact of regulations on the supply and quality of care in child care markets. The American Economic Review 101 5: 1775–1805.
    [CROSSREF]
  59. Hudson, B 2015. Dealing with market failure: a new dilemma in UK health and social care policy? Critical Social Policy 35 2: 281–292, https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018314563037.
    [CROSSREF]
  60. Iizuka, T, and Uchida, G 2017. Promoting innovation in small markets: evidence from the market for rare and intractable diseases. Journal of Health Economics 54 3: 56–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.03.006.
    [CROSSREF]
  61. Institute of Public Care 2016. Market Shaping to Support Individual Purchasing of Care: Market Shaping Review, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, https://ipc.brookes.ac.uk/publications/Market%20shaping%20to%20support%20individual%20purchasing%20of%20care.pdf.
  62. Jaworski, B, Kohli, AK, and Sahay, A 2000. Market-driven versus driving markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 1: 45–54, https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281005.
    [CROSSREF]
  63. Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS 2018. Joint standing committee on the national disability insurance scheme public inquiry. www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/National_Disability_Insurance_Scheme.
    [CROSSREF]
  64. Kastberg, G 2008. The blind spots of quasi-market regulators. Public Organization Review 8 4: 347–363.
    [CROSSREF]
  65. Laing, A, and Cotton, S 1995. Towards an understanding of health care purchasing: the purchasing behaviour of general practice fundholders. Journal of Marketing Management 11 6: 583–600, https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.1995.9964369.
    [CROSSREF]
  66. LeGrand, J 2007. Delivering Public Services Through Choice and Competition: The Other Invisible Hand, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  67. LeGrand, J, and Bartlett, W 1993. Quasi-Markets and Social Policy, Macmillan, London.
  68. Lowery, D 1998. Consumer sovereignty and quasi-market failure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 2: 137–172.
    [CROSSREF]
  69. Malbon, E, Alexander, D, Carey, G, Reeders, D, Green, C, Dickinson, H, and Kavanagh, A 2018. Adapting to a marketised system: network analysis of a personalisation scheme in early implementation. Health & Social Care in the Community 27 2: 191–198, https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12639.
    [CROSSREF]
  70. Malbon, E, Carey, G, and Dickinson, H 2016. Accountability in public service quasi-markets: the case of the Australian National disability insurance scheme. Australian Journal of Public Administration 77 3: 468–481.
    [CROSSREF]
  71. Malbon, E, Carey, G, and Reeders, D 2019. Mixed accountability within new public governance: the case of a personalized welfare scheme in early implementation. Social Policy & Administration 53 1: 156–169, https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12446.
    [CROSSREF]
  72. Mavromaras, K, Moskos, M, Mahuteau, S, and Isherwood, L 2018. Evaluation of the NDIS: final report. National Institute of Labor Studies, Canberra, www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/04_2018/ndis_evaluation_consolidated_report_april_2018.pdf.
  73. NACA Equity of Access & Outcomes Internal Working Group 2017. Ensuring equity of access & outcomes in the future aged care system. www.naca.asn.au/Publications/Equity%20of%20Access%20and%20Outcomes%20Statement%20of%20Principles_Landscape.pdf.
  74. National Audit Office 2012. Delivering public services through markets: principles for achieving value for money. National Audit Office Principles Paper, London, www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Delivering_public_services_through_markets.pdf.
  75. National Disability Insurance Agency [NDIA] 2017. NDIs annual report 2016-17. National Disability Insurance Agency, Canberra.
  76. NDIA 2016a. Integrated Market, Sector and Workforce Strategy, National Disability Insurance Agency, Canberra.
  77. NDIA 2016b. NDIS Market Approach: Statement of Opportunity and Intent, National Disability Insurance Agency, Canberra.
  78. Needham, C 2010. Debate: personalized public services—a new state/citizen contract? Public Money & Management 30 3: 136–138, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540961003794246.
    [CROSSREF]
  79. Needham, C 2013. The Boundaries of Budgets: Why should Individuals make Spending Choices about Their Health and Social Care?, Centre for Health and the Public Interest, London.
    [CROSSREF]
  80. Needham, C, and Glasby, J 2015. Personalisation – love it or hate it? Journal of Integrated Care 23 5: 268–276, https://doi.org/10.1108/JICA-08-2015-0034.
    [CROSSREF]
  81. Needham, C, Hall, K, Allen, K, Burn, E, Mangan, C, and Henwood, M 2018. Market-shaping and Personalisation, A Realist Review of the Literature, Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
  82. Nichols, LM 2012. Government intervention in health care markets is practical, necessary, and morally sound. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40: 547–557, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00688.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  83. Niemietz, K 2015. Internal markets, management by targets, and quasi-markets: an analysis of health care reforms in the English NHS. Economic Affairs 35 1: 93–108, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12115.
    [CROSSREF]
  84. Niklasson, L 1996. Quasi-markets in higher education‐‐a comparative analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 18 1: 7–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080960180102.
    [CROSSREF]
  85. Osborne, S (Ed.), (2010. The New Public Governance, Routledge, New York.
    [CROSSREF]
  86. Pacura, R 2014. Proposed legislative changes to improve the functioning of the Romanian higher education system. Economics, Management and Financial Markets 9 4: 402–412.
  87. Penn, H 2007. Childcare market management: how the United Kingdom government has reshaped its role in developing early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 8 3: 192–207, https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2007.8.3.192.
    [CROSSREF]
  88. Poterba, J 1994. Government intervention in the markets for education and health care: how and why? National Bureau of Economic Research (No. w4916), Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w4916.
  89. Productivity Commission 2011. Disability care and support: productivity commission inquiry report. Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra.
  90. Productivity Commission 2017. NDIS Costs, Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra.
  91. Ranerup, A 2007. Rationalities in the design of public e-services. Journal of E-Government 3 4: 39–64, https://doi.org/10.1300/J399v03n04_03.
    [CROSSREF]
  92. Schmidt, AE, Winkelmann, J, Rodrigues, R, and Leichsenring, K 2016. Lessons for regulating informal markets and implications for quality assurance – the case of migrant care workers in Austria. Ageing and Society 36 4: 741–763, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X1500001X.
    [CROSSREF]
  93. Scotton, R 1999. Managed competition: the policy context. Australian Health Review 22 2: 103–121, https://doi.org/10.1071/AH990103.
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  94. Sheaff, R 2000. The new institutional economics: an application to public service governance design in UK primary health care. Public Management 2 4: 441–455, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670050200165.
    [CROSSREF]
  95. Sheaff, R, Chambers, N, Charles, N, Exworthy, M, Mahon, A, Byng, R, and Mannion, R 2013. How managed a market? Modes of commissioning in England and Germany. BMC Health Services Research 13 1, p.), S8, https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-S1-S8.
    [CROSSREF]
  96. Sood, N, Alpert, A, Barnes, K, Huckfeldt, P, and Escarce, J.J 2017. Effects of payment reform in more versus less competitive markets. Journal of Health Economics 51 1: 66–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.12.006.
    [CROSSREF]
  97. Steuerle, C, Ooms, V, Peterson, G, and Reischauer, R 2000. Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services, Brookings Institution Press, Washington.
  98. Sumsion, J 2012. ABC Learning and Australian early education and care: a retrospective ethical audit of a radical experiment, in Loyd, E, and Penn, H (Eds), Childcare Markets Local and Global: Can they Deliver an Equitable Service, Policy Press, Bristol, 209–225.
    [CROSSREF]
  99. Temple, P 2006. Intervention in a higher education market: a case study. Higher Education Quarterly 60 3: 257–269, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2006.00320.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  100. Tibandebage, P, and Mackintosh, M 2005. The market shaping of charges, trust and abuse: health care transactions in Tanzania. Social Science & Medicine 61 7: 1385–1395, : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.072.
    [CROSSREF]
  101. UK Department of Health and Social Care 2018. Care and support statutory guidance. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315993/Care-Act-Guidance.pdf.
  102. Williams, I, and Dickinson, H 2016. Going it alone or playing to the crowd? A critique of individual budgets and the personalisation of health care in the English national health service. Australian Journal of Public Administration 75 2: 149–158, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12155.
    [CROSSREF]
XML PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 1

Prisma diagram of search results

Full Size   |   Slide (.pptx)

Figure 2

Goals of NDIS markets (NDIA, 2016b)

Full Size   |   Slide (.pptx)

REFERENCES

  1. Abbott, S, Procter, S, and Iacovou, N 2009. NHS purchaser-provider relationships in england and wales: the view from primary care. Social Policy & Administration 43 1: 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2008.00642.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  2. Ahgren, B 2010. Competition and integration in Swedish health care. Health Policy 96 2: 91–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.01.011.
    [CROSSREF]
  3. Allen, P, and Petsoulas, C 2016. Pricing in the English NHS quasi market: a national study of the allocation of financial risk through contracts. Public Money & Management 36 5: 341–348, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2016.1194080.
    [CROSSREF]
  4. ANAO [Australian National Audit Office] 2016. National Disability Insurance Scheme - Management of Transition of the Disability Services Market, Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra.
  5. Anessi-Pessina, E, Cantu, E, and Joninii, C 2004. Phasing out market mechanisms in the Italian national health service. Public Money and Management 24 5: 309–316, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2004.00439.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  6. Anttonen, A 2012. Universalism and the challenge of diversity in Anttonen, A, Haikio, L, and Stefansson, K (Eds), Welfare State, Universalism and Diversity, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1–15.
    [CROSSREF]
  7. Ardley, B, and Chen, NC 2017. Strategies and servicescapes: delivering user-focused health care in Europe and China. Strategic Change 26 3: 273–280, https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2128.
    [CROSSREF]
  8. Askheim, OP 1999. Personal assistance for disabled people–the Norwegian experience. International Journal of Social Welfare 8 2: 111–120.
    [CROSSREF]
  9. Askheim, OP, Bengtsson, H, and Richter Bjelke, B 2014. Personal assistance in a Scandinavian context: similarities, differences and developmental traits. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 16 sup 1: 3–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2014.895413.
    [CROSSREF]
  10. Australian Government 2018. Australian Government response to the joint standing committee on the national disability insurance scheme (NDIS) report: transitional arrangements for the NDIS. Australian Government, Canberra, www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2018/response_to_the_joint_standing_committee_on_the_ndis-transitional_arrangements_.pdf.
    [CROSSREF]
  11. Australian Parliament Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS 2018. Transitional Arrangements for the NDIS, Australian Parliament, Canberra.
  12. Azimi, T, Franzel, L, and Probst, N 2017. Seizing market shaping opportunities for vaccine cold chain equipment. Vaccine 35 17: 2260–2264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.12.073.
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  13. Bagley, C, Woods, P, and Glatter, R 1996. Barriers to school responsiveness in the education quasi-market. School Organisation 16 1: 45–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/0260136960160105.
    [CROSSREF]
  14. Barber, SL, Kumar, A, Roubal, T, Colombo, F, and Lorenzoni, L 2018. Harnessing the private health sector by using prices as a policy instrument: lessons learned from South Africa. Health Policy 122 5: 558–564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.018.
    [CROSSREF]
  15. Barile, S, Saviano, M, and Polese, F 2014. Information asymmetry and co-creation in health care services. Australasian Marketing Journal 22 3: 205–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2014.08.008.
    [CROSSREF]
  16. Baxter, K, Glendinning, C, and Greener, I 2011. The implications of personal budgets for the home care market. Public Money & Management 31 2: 91–98, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2011.560702.
    [CROSSREF]
  17. Baxter, K, Rabiee, P, and Glendinning, C 2013. Managed personal budgets for older people: what are English local authorities doing to facilitate personalized and flexible care? Public Money & Management 33 6: 399–406, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2013.835998.
    [CROSSREF]
  18. Beach, D 2017. Personalisation and the education commodity: a meta-ethnographic analysis. Ethnography and Education 12 2: 148–164, https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2016.1247738.
    [CROSSREF]
  19. Bel, G, Dijkgraaf, E, Fageda, X, and Gradus, R 2010. Similar problems different solutions: comparing refuse collection in the Netherlands and Spain. Public Administration 88 2: 479–495, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01808.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  20. Bennett, C, and Ferlie, E 1996. Contracting in theory and practice: some evidence from the NHS. Public Administration 74 1: 49–66, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1996.tb00857.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  21. Beresford, P 2008. Whose personalisation? Soundings 40 8: 8–17, https://doi.org/10.3898/136266208820465146.
    [CROSSREF]
  22. Bergmark, A 2008. Market reforms in Swedish health care: normative reorientation and welfare state sustainability. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 3: 241–261, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhn010.
    [CROSSREF]
  23. Bertolin, J. CG 2011. The quasi-markets in higher education: from the improbable perfectly competitive markets to the unavoidable State regulation. Educação e Pesquisa 37 2: 237–248.
    [CROSSREF]
  24. Bjornstad, DJ, and Brown, MA 2004. A market failures framework for defining the government’s role in energy efficiency. Joint Institute for Energy and Environment 2 3: 1–35.
  25. Bloom, G, Henson, S, and Peters, DH 2014. Innovation in regulation of rapidly changing health markets. Globalization and Health 10 1: 53–54, https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-10-53.
    [CROSSREF]
  26. Bloom, G, Kanjilal, B, and Peters, DH 2008. Regulating health care markets in China and India. Health Affairs 27 4: 952–963, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.4.952.
    [CROSSREF]
  27. Boocock, A 2017. Caveats for the new localism in further education – why the use of principal–agent solutions at the local level will not work. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 22 2: 289–313, https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2017.1314685.
    [CROSSREF]
  28. Brennan, C, Rice, J, Traustadóttir, R, and Anderberg, P 2017. How can states ensure access to personal assistance when service delivery is decentralized? A multi-level analysis of Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 19 4: 334–346, https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2016.1261737.
    [CROSSREF]
  29. Broadhurst, S, and Landau, K 2017. Learning disability market position statements, are they fit for purpose? Tizard Learning Disability Review 22 4: 198–205, https://doi.org/10.1108/TLDR-03-2017-0011.
    [CROSSREF]
  30. Brown, TL, and Potoski, M 2004. Managing the public service market. Public Administration Review 64 6: 656–668, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00413.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  31. Brown, TL, Potoski, M, and Van Slyke, DM 2006. Managing public service contracts: Aligning values, institutions, and markets. Public Administration Review 66 3: 323–331, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00590.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  32. Carey, G, and Crammond, B 2015. What works in joined-up government? An evidence synthesis. International Journal of Public Administration 38 Nos 13-14: 1020–1029, https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.982292.
    [CROSSREF]
  33. Carey, G, and Crammond, B 2017. A glossary of policy frameworks: the many forms of “universalism” and policy “targeting.”. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 71 3: 303–307, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204311.
    [CROSSREF]
  34. Carey, G, and Harris, P 2016. Developing management practices to support joined-up governance: practices to support joined-up governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration 75 1: 112–118, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12169.
    [CROSSREF]
  35. Carey, G, Dickinson, H, Fletcher, M, and Reeders, D 2018a. Australia’s national disability insurance scheme: the role of actuaries, The Oxford International Handbook of Public Administration for Social Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  36. Carey, G, Dickinson, H, Malbon, E, and Reeders, D 2017a. The vexed question of market stewardship in the public sector: examining equity and the social contract through the Australian national disability insurance scheme. Social Policy & Administration 54 1, https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12321.
    [CROSSREF]
  37. Carey, G, Kay, A, and Nevile, A 2017b. Institutional legacies and “sticky layers”: what happens in cases of transformative policy change? Administration & Society, 0095399717704682, https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399717704682.
    [CROSSREF]
  38. Carey, G, Malbon, E, Reeders, D, Kavanagh, A, and Llewellyn, G 2017c. Redressing or entrenching social and health inequities through policy implementation? Examining personalised budgets through the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme. International Journal for Equity in Health: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0682-z.
    [CROSSREF]
  39. Cleveland, G, and Krashinsky, M 2009. The nonprofit advantage: producing quality in thick and thin child care markets. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28 3: 440–462, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20440.
    [CROSSREF]
  40. Cogan, JF, Hubbard, RG, and Kessler, DP 2005. Making markets work: five steps to a better health care system. Health Affairs 24 6: 1447–1457, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.24.6.1447.
    [CROSSREF]
  41. Collings, S, Dew, A, and Dowse, L 2016. Support planning with people with intellectual disability and complex support needs in the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 41 3: 272–276, https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1151864.
    [CROSSREF]
  42. Commonwealth Government of Australia 2013. National disability insurance scheme act 2013. No. 20, www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00934.
  43. Commonwealth Ombudsman 2018. Report on the national disability agency’s handling of reviews, report nr. 3. Canberra, https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/83981/NDIS-NDIA-Final-report-on-administration-of-reviews-under-the-Act.pdf.
  44. Considine, M, and O’Sullivan, S 2015. Contracting-out Welfare Services, Wiley Blackwell, UK.
  45. Cooper, Z, Gibbons, S, Jones, S, and McGuire, A 2011. Does hospital competition save lives? Evidence from the English NHS patient choice reforms. The Economic Journal 121 554: F228–F260, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02449.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  46. Crawford, JL 2010. Imperfectly competitive health care markets - the issue is fair pricing. Academy of Health Care Management Journal 6 2: 87–89.
  47. Cutler, T, and Waine, B 1997. The politics of quasi-markets how quasi-markets have been analysed and how they might be analysed. Critical Social Policy 17 51: 3–26.
    [CROSSREF]
  48. Daniels, R, and Trebilcock, M 2005. Rethinking the Welfare State: Government by Voucher, Routledge, Abingdon.
  49. Dassiou, X, Langham, P, Nancarrow, C, Scharaschkin, A, and Ward, D 2015. Public service markets: their economics, institutional oversight and regulation. Palgrave Communications 1 15053: 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.35.
    [CROSSREF]
  50. Destler, K, and Page, SB 2010. Building supply in thin markets: districts’ efforts to promote the growth of autonomous schools. Working Paper: Western Washington University Series 1 3: 1–28.
  51. Dixon, J, Le Grand, J, and Smith, P 2003. Can Market Forces be used for Good?, King’s Fund, London.
  52. Dixon-Woods, M, Agarwal, S, Jones, D, Young, B, and Sutton, A 2005. Synthesising qualitative and quantiative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 10 1: 45–53.
    [CROSSREF]
  53. Feiock, R.C 2002. A quasi-market framework for development competition. Journal of Urban Affairs 24 2: 123–142, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9906.00118.
    [CROSSREF]
  54. Gash, T, Panchamia, N, Sims, S, and Hotson, L 2013. Making Public Service Markets Work: Professionalising Government’s Approach to Commissioning and Market Stewardship, Institute for Government, London, http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/making-public-service-markets-work.
  55. Girth, AM, Hefetz, A, Johnston, JM, and Warner, ME 2012. Outsourcing public service delivery: Management responses in noncompetitive markets. Public Administration Review 72 6: 887–900.
    [CROSSREF]
  56. Grubb, D 2003. Points of comparison between Australia’s job network and the Dutch market for reintegration services. Australian Journal of Labour Economics 6 2, p. 357.
  57. Hake, B 2016. Regulatory governance of “training markets”, “market failure”, and “quasi” markets: historical dimensions of the post-initial training market in The Netherlands. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults 7 2: 171–189, https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela9080.
    [CROSSREF]
  58. Hotz, VJ, and Xiao, M 2011. The impact of regulations on the supply and quality of care in child care markets. The American Economic Review 101 5: 1775–1805.
    [CROSSREF]
  59. Hudson, B 2015. Dealing with market failure: a new dilemma in UK health and social care policy? Critical Social Policy 35 2: 281–292, https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018314563037.
    [CROSSREF]
  60. Iizuka, T, and Uchida, G 2017. Promoting innovation in small markets: evidence from the market for rare and intractable diseases. Journal of Health Economics 54 3: 56–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.03.006.
    [CROSSREF]
  61. Institute of Public Care 2016. Market Shaping to Support Individual Purchasing of Care: Market Shaping Review, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, https://ipc.brookes.ac.uk/publications/Market%20shaping%20to%20support%20individual%20purchasing%20of%20care.pdf.
  62. Jaworski, B, Kohli, AK, and Sahay, A 2000. Market-driven versus driving markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 1: 45–54, https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281005.
    [CROSSREF]
  63. Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS 2018. Joint standing committee on the national disability insurance scheme public inquiry. www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/National_Disability_Insurance_Scheme.
    [CROSSREF]
  64. Kastberg, G 2008. The blind spots of quasi-market regulators. Public Organization Review 8 4: 347–363.
    [CROSSREF]
  65. Laing, A, and Cotton, S 1995. Towards an understanding of health care purchasing: the purchasing behaviour of general practice fundholders. Journal of Marketing Management 11 6: 583–600, https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.1995.9964369.
    [CROSSREF]
  66. LeGrand, J 2007. Delivering Public Services Through Choice and Competition: The Other Invisible Hand, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  67. LeGrand, J, and Bartlett, W 1993. Quasi-Markets and Social Policy, Macmillan, London.
  68. Lowery, D 1998. Consumer sovereignty and quasi-market failure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 2: 137–172.
    [CROSSREF]
  69. Malbon, E, Alexander, D, Carey, G, Reeders, D, Green, C, Dickinson, H, and Kavanagh, A 2018. Adapting to a marketised system: network analysis of a personalisation scheme in early implementation. Health & Social Care in the Community 27 2: 191–198, https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12639.
    [CROSSREF]
  70. Malbon, E, Carey, G, and Dickinson, H 2016. Accountability in public service quasi-markets: the case of the Australian National disability insurance scheme. Australian Journal of Public Administration 77 3: 468–481.
    [CROSSREF]
  71. Malbon, E, Carey, G, and Reeders, D 2019. Mixed accountability within new public governance: the case of a personalized welfare scheme in early implementation. Social Policy & Administration 53 1: 156–169, https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12446.
    [CROSSREF]
  72. Mavromaras, K, Moskos, M, Mahuteau, S, and Isherwood, L 2018. Evaluation of the NDIS: final report. National Institute of Labor Studies, Canberra, www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/04_2018/ndis_evaluation_consolidated_report_april_2018.pdf.
  73. NACA Equity of Access & Outcomes Internal Working Group 2017. Ensuring equity of access & outcomes in the future aged care system. www.naca.asn.au/Publications/Equity%20of%20Access%20and%20Outcomes%20Statement%20of%20Principles_Landscape.pdf.
  74. National Audit Office 2012. Delivering public services through markets: principles for achieving value for money. National Audit Office Principles Paper, London, www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Delivering_public_services_through_markets.pdf.
  75. National Disability Insurance Agency [NDIA] 2017. NDIs annual report 2016-17. National Disability Insurance Agency, Canberra.
  76. NDIA 2016a. Integrated Market, Sector and Workforce Strategy, National Disability Insurance Agency, Canberra.
  77. NDIA 2016b. NDIS Market Approach: Statement of Opportunity and Intent, National Disability Insurance Agency, Canberra.
  78. Needham, C 2010. Debate: personalized public services—a new state/citizen contract? Public Money & Management 30 3: 136–138, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540961003794246.
    [CROSSREF]
  79. Needham, C 2013. The Boundaries of Budgets: Why should Individuals make Spending Choices about Their Health and Social Care?, Centre for Health and the Public Interest, London.
    [CROSSREF]
  80. Needham, C, and Glasby, J 2015. Personalisation – love it or hate it? Journal of Integrated Care 23 5: 268–276, https://doi.org/10.1108/JICA-08-2015-0034.
    [CROSSREF]
  81. Needham, C, Hall, K, Allen, K, Burn, E, Mangan, C, and Henwood, M 2018. Market-shaping and Personalisation, A Realist Review of the Literature, Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
  82. Nichols, LM 2012. Government intervention in health care markets is practical, necessary, and morally sound. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40: 547–557, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00688.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  83. Niemietz, K 2015. Internal markets, management by targets, and quasi-markets: an analysis of health care reforms in the English NHS. Economic Affairs 35 1: 93–108, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12115.
    [CROSSREF]
  84. Niklasson, L 1996. Quasi-markets in higher education‐‐a comparative analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 18 1: 7–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080960180102.
    [CROSSREF]
  85. Osborne, S (Ed.), (2010. The New Public Governance, Routledge, New York.
    [CROSSREF]
  86. Pacura, R 2014. Proposed legislative changes to improve the functioning of the Romanian higher education system. Economics, Management and Financial Markets 9 4: 402–412.
  87. Penn, H 2007. Childcare market management: how the United Kingdom government has reshaped its role in developing early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 8 3: 192–207, https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2007.8.3.192.
    [CROSSREF]
  88. Poterba, J 1994. Government intervention in the markets for education and health care: how and why? National Bureau of Economic Research (No. w4916), Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w4916.
  89. Productivity Commission 2011. Disability care and support: productivity commission inquiry report. Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra.
  90. Productivity Commission 2017. NDIS Costs, Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra.
  91. Ranerup, A 2007. Rationalities in the design of public e-services. Journal of E-Government 3 4: 39–64, https://doi.org/10.1300/J399v03n04_03.
    [CROSSREF]
  92. Schmidt, AE, Winkelmann, J, Rodrigues, R, and Leichsenring, K 2016. Lessons for regulating informal markets and implications for quality assurance – the case of migrant care workers in Austria. Ageing and Society 36 4: 741–763, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X1500001X.
    [CROSSREF]
  93. Scotton, R 1999. Managed competition: the policy context. Australian Health Review 22 2: 103–121, https://doi.org/10.1071/AH990103.
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  94. Sheaff, R 2000. The new institutional economics: an application to public service governance design in UK primary health care. Public Management 2 4: 441–455, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670050200165.
    [CROSSREF]
  95. Sheaff, R, Chambers, N, Charles, N, Exworthy, M, Mahon, A, Byng, R, and Mannion, R 2013. How managed a market? Modes of commissioning in England and Germany. BMC Health Services Research 13 1, p.), S8, https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-S1-S8.
    [CROSSREF]
  96. Sood, N, Alpert, A, Barnes, K, Huckfeldt, P, and Escarce, J.J 2017. Effects of payment reform in more versus less competitive markets. Journal of Health Economics 51 1: 66–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.12.006.
    [CROSSREF]
  97. Steuerle, C, Ooms, V, Peterson, G, and Reischauer, R 2000. Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services, Brookings Institution Press, Washington.
  98. Sumsion, J 2012. ABC Learning and Australian early education and care: a retrospective ethical audit of a radical experiment, in Loyd, E, and Penn, H (Eds), Childcare Markets Local and Global: Can they Deliver an Equitable Service, Policy Press, Bristol, 209–225.
    [CROSSREF]
  99. Temple, P 2006. Intervention in a higher education market: a case study. Higher Education Quarterly 60 3: 257–269, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2006.00320.x.
    [CROSSREF]
  100. Tibandebage, P, and Mackintosh, M 2005. The market shaping of charges, trust and abuse: health care transactions in Tanzania. Social Science & Medicine 61 7: 1385–1395, : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.072.
    [CROSSREF]
  101. UK Department of Health and Social Care 2018. Care and support statutory guidance. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315993/Care-Act-Guidance.pdf.
  102. Williams, I, and Dickinson, H 2016. Going it alone or playing to the crowd? A critique of individual budgets and the personalisation of health care in the English national health service. Australian Journal of Public Administration 75 2: 149–158, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12155.
    [CROSSREF]

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS