Abstract
This research focusses on the organisation of social care services in the Netherlands within the European social market economy. More specifically the research studies the different legal instruments public authorities can use to organise society. This is applied to the social care sector. Since the decentralisation of social care services
... read more
in the Netherlands in 2015, municipalities have been placed at the forefront to ensure that the services prescribed by different Social Acts, a.o. Jeugdwet (Youth Care Act) and Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning 2015 (Social Support Act 2015) are provided to their citizens and are of the legally prescribed quality. The instruments they can choose play a crucial role to organise these services properly: public contracts, subsidies, authorisation schemes, concession contracts and the open-house model. However, there is - in practice and the literature - much uncertainty about the dividing lines between the various legal instruments public authorities can choose to organise them. This research provides clarity on the dividing lines between public contracts and the other legal instruments and provides insights on how to choose between the different legal instruments. It also analyses the legal status of the open-house model, the adequacy of the procedure for social and other specific services in the Dutch Aanbestedingswet 2012 (Public Procurement Act 2012) and the legitimacy of the various non-regulated commissioning procedures used in the Dutch social care sector. The choice for one or the other instrument can have different advantages and disadvantages with regard to the organisation of social care services. This research pays, additionally, attention to the (dis)advantages that a choice for one or the other legal instrument can have on the good organisation of social care services. Good in this regard means a most optimal balance of different aspects related to the organisation of social care and that result in wanted outcomes. On the basis of these considerations, public authorities can decide what advantages and/or disadvantages of the different instruments are in line with their policy objectives. For example, one instrument can challenge healthcare providers to better quality or innovations, while other instruments give clients a great deal of freedom of choice. The extent to which health care fraud can be prevented with the various instruments is also taken into account. This research builds upon findings from other (economic) research to social care services that has already been carried out within the interdisciplinary research centre UUCePP.
show less
