Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background In South Korea, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service manages the Prescribing Analysis System (PAS) to evaluate the appropriate use of medication. To achieve the system's goal of changing prescribing behavior, it is critical to understand how physicians respond to the PAS. This study analyzes the opinions of South Korean physicians about the PAS, the way it is used, and factors affecting prescribing behavior. Methods A qualitative, exploratory approach was used, with four focus groups of physicians from different specialties. A semi-structured guide was used to explore their opinions. Transcripts of the discussions were analyzed by the authors, who independently considered content using uniform categories. Common themes were extracted and used to gather results and draw conclusions. Results Physicians acknowledged some positive aspects of the PAS but, overall, had mainly negative impressions of the system, and particularly, the evaluation reports that it generates. They reported that their prescribing behavior was affected by predisposing factors, including experiential, environmental and psychological factors. Physicians reported that their negative perceptions regarding the regulations were primarily influenced by concerns about maintaining their autonomy and expertise. However, their strong resistance to these perceived infringements on their independence may be considered inconsistent in relation to their professional autonomy as there was an equally strong concern about market competition. Physicians' objections to the PAS are more likely to have been caused by deeply rooted distrust of the government agency in charge of the system. Discussion Interestingly, we found that physicians' strong resistance to perceived violations of their autonomy seems somewhat inconsistent and contradictory. While they are very positive about new information or printed materials provided by pharmaceutical representatives, they are less enthusiastic when it comes to governmental guidelines or standards. Similarly, they appear to willingly accept situations in which they believe they should comply with patients' demands as a means of surviving in a competitive market. It is notable that physicians' negative perceptions of PAS seemed to be aggravated by suspicion and distrust regarding the purpose of this program. Conclusions Because of widespread beliefs in professional autonomy, market competition, and a .

The article analyses the capability of carbon abatement technologies to be made commercially viable by way of government policy incentives over a long and short-term time frame. It is concluded that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Biomass require issues such as technological improvements and infrastructure scale up to be resolved positively to realise their long and short-term potential. Low CO2 transport meanwhile is highly dependent on the construction of infrastructure which commercial success with the other two technologies would instigate. Broader implications are also drawn by reference to the UK's advantages and disadvantages in the Global market. These reveal that the UK has strong opposition from foreign businesses in bio-fuels and low CO2 transport but can potentially perform CCS more economically due to its geographic location. The study draws on an interview conducted on 25th March with Dr. Peter Iron. Dr. Iron's career started in the UK where he worked for British coal researching clean coal technologies. After obtaining his PhD in Chemical Engineering at Imperial College he then moved to Australia to work as a senior research manager for CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) Low Emission Technology Centre in Brisbane Australia.

In June the Coalition Government produced a budget that aimed to reduce the government deficit quickly. The plan was based mainly on cuts in current expenditure and reductions in transfers to individuals. There are four possible reasons for reducing the deficit, and all have been used to justify the policy. The first reason might be that the cost of borrowing is currently too high, and the second could be that if deficits persist the markets could lose confidence and the cost of borrowing would rise. The third reason might be that we have to reduce the debt stock in order that we prepare for the next crisis, whilst the fourth, and perhaps most persuasive in the long run, is that it is unfair to borrow so much and therefore reduce the consumption of future generations. If either of the first two had merit there would be a case for swift consolidation, whilst if the third or fourth predominate, we should not be in any rush to act until output is nearer full capacity.

Last summer, Lord Nick Herbert launched the Commission for Smart Government to tackle the systemic problems of government in the UK.

AbstractThe COVID‐19 pandemic has challenged nations states across the world. They have implemented lockdown and social distancing and with the development of vaccines have gone to great lengths to build herd immunity for their populations. As place managers, local government has played a variety of roles supporting central government edicts related to social distancing and supporting local businesses impacted by lockdowns. The research reported here comparing the role local government has played in Australia, Canada, Italy, and New Zealand shows that they have at different times and for different issues been policy takers from central government, policy shapers, and policy makers adapting national strategies. Local government plays an important complementary role with central governments in both unitary and federal systems of government. The paper contributes to the literature on multi‐level governance, place‐based decision‐making, and disaster and emergency management by offering a framework for analysing municipal roles in crises management both in their relationship with higher layers of government and in their acting as locally placed organisations.Points for practitioners
Cross‐national study: Australia, Canada, Italy, and New Zealand.
Examination of local government responses to COVID‐19 pandemic as policy makers, takers, or shapers.
Comparison of federal and unitary states.