Abstract

Mulligan's paper makes an important and persuasive case that social prescribing should be understood as strategic infrastructure rather than as a marginal program. However, for that claim to hold in practice, the argument needs to be more clearly grounded in three operational conditions. The first one is that community action must be recognized upstream of healthcare access. Secondly, primary care must be repositioned as a local clinical infrastructure responsible for a population. Finally, the model requires an explicit territorial architecture of governance, financing and accountability.