An analysis of media reporting on the closure of freestanding midwifery units in England.

PROBLEM: Despite clinical guidelines and policy promoting choice of place of birth, 14 Freestanding Midwifery Units were closed between 2008 and 2015, closures reported in the media as justified by low use and financial constraints. BACKGROUND: The Birthplace in England Programme found that freestanding midwifery units provided the most cost-effective birthplace for women at low risk of complications. Women planning birth in a freestanding unit were less likely to experience interventions and serious morbidity than those planning obstetric unit birth, with no difference in outcomes for babies. METHODS: This paper uses an interpretative technique developed for policy analysis to explore the representation of these closures in 191 news articles, to explore the public climate in which they occurred. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: The articles focussed on underuse by women and financial constraints on services. Despite the inclusion of service user voices, the power of framing was held by service managers and commissioners. The analysis exposed how neoliberalist and austerity policies have privileged representation of individual consumer choice and market-driven provision as drivers of changes in health services. This normative framing presents the reasons given for closure as hard to refute and cultural norms persist that birth is safest in an obstetric setting, despite evidence to the contrary. CONCLUSION: The rise of neoliberalism and austerity in contemporary Britain has influenced the reform of maternity services, in particular the closure of midwifery units. Justifications given for closure silence other narratives, predominantly from service users, that attempt to present women's choice in terms of rights and a social model of care.

Osteopathic medicine in transition: postmortem of the Osteopathic Medical Center of Texas.

The stand-alone osteopathic hospital was a necessity to the osteopathic medical profession in an era when it was isolated from allopathic medicine. As osteopathic medicine has become increasingly integrated with allopathic medicine, however, an independent osteopathic hospital is no longer a necessity. Moreover, a stand-alone institution seems to be economically out of place in today's market. The Osteopathic Medical Center of Texas in Fort Worth is an example of a stand-alone hospital that was unable to capitalize on the benefits realized by integrated hospital systems. The author believes that this failure contributed to the institution's demise. The market power of a hospital system can be used for more favorable contracting with vendors and providers, as well as facilitating negotiations with payers. System affiliation provides economic efficiency, security, and protection in the highly uncertain, complex, and competitive healthcare market.

Against the grain? A reasoned argument for not closing a state hospital.

In the face of the Massachusetts Governor's attempts to close one of the state's four remaining state hospitals, Massachusetts legislators overrode the Governor's veto of funding for the hospital, but required the state's Mental Health Authority to author a study of the implications of further loss of public sector inpatient beds. The Center for Mental Health Services Research of the University of Massachusetts Medical School conducted its own study concluding that maintaining a longer-term inpatient capacity in the public sector in central Massachusetts was both necessary and accrued a significant number of benefits. This article can serve as a model for the reasoned position that a state hospital in 21st century psychiatry can be looked at as a multiservice center that fulfills a key role in a public sector, integrated system of treatment, care, training and research.