Jackie Cumming

Reform and counter reform: how sustainable is New Zealand's latest health system restructuring?

New Zealands health care sector has undergone almost continual restructuring since the early 1980s. In the latest set of reforms, 21 district health boards (DHBs) have been established with responsibility for promoting health, purchasing services for their populations and delivering publicly owned health services. Boards will be governed by a mix of elected and appointed members, will be responsible for arranging the delivery of primary and community health services, and will own and run public hospitals and related facilities. We clarify the differences and continuities between earlier reforms and the 2000/01 structures, as well as the current reforms’ potential strengths and weaknesses. The paper discusses whether the DHB model was the only feasible option for restructuring and whether the dynamics of the new system may lead to further changes, particularly on the purchaser side of the system. Given that DHBs face potential conflict between their purchasing and provision roles, and given the potential advantages that primary care organisations may have as purchasers, we conclude that it is possible that all or part of the purchasing function of DHBs might eventually shift to primary care organisations, leaving the DHBs as hospital-based provider organisations.

Priority-setting in New Zealand: translating principles into practice.

In May 1998 the New Zealand Health Funding Authority released a discussion paper which proposed a principles-based approach to setting purchasing priorities that incorporates the economic methods of programme budgeting and marginal analysis, and cost—utility analysis. The principles upon which the process was to be based are effectiveness, cost, equity of health outcomes, Maori health and acceptability. This essay describes and critiques issues associated with translating the principles into practice, most particularly the proposed methods for evaluating the effectiveness and measuring the cost of services. It is argued that the proposals make an important contribution towards the development of a method for prioritising services which challenges our thinking about those services and their goals, and which is systematic, explicit, and transparent. The shift towards ‘thinking at the margin’ and systematically reviewing the value for money of competing claims on resources is likely to improve the quality of decision-making compared with the status quo. This does not imply that prioritisation can, or should, be undertaken by means of any simple formula. Any prioritisation process should always be guided by informed judgement. The approach is more appropriate for some services than for others. Key methodological issues that need further consideration include the choice of instrument for measuring health gains, the identification of marginal services, how to combine qualitative and quantitative information, and how to ensure consistency across different levels of decision-making.

Efficiency, effectiveness, equity (E3). Evaluating hospital performance in three dimensions

There are well-established frameworks for comparing the performance of health systems cross-nationally on multiple dimensions. A sub-set of such comprehensive schema is taken up by criteria specifically applied to health service delivery, including hospital performance. We focus on evaluating hospital performance, using the New Zealand public hospital sector over the period 2001-2009 as a pragmatic and illustrative case study for cross-national application. We apply a broad three-dimensional matrix--efficiency, effectiveness, equity--each based on two measures, and we undertake ranking comparisons of 35 hospitals. On the efficiency dimension--relative stay, day surgery--we find coefficients of variation of 10.8% and 8.5% respectively in the pooled data, and a slight trend towards a narrowing of inter-hospital variation over time. The correlation between these indicators is low (.20). For effectiveness--post-admission mortality, unplanned readmission--the coefficient of variation is generally higher (24.1% and 12.2%), and the trend is flat. The correlation is again low (.21). The equity dimension is assessed by quantifying the degree of ethnic and socio-economic variation for each hospital. The coefficient of variation is much higher--40.7-66.5% for ethnicity, 55.8-84.4% for socio-economic position--the trend over time is mixed, and the correlation is moderate (.41). On averaging the rank of hospitals across all measures it is evident that there is limited consistency across the three constituent dimensions. While it is possible to assess hospital performance across three dimensions using an illustrative set of standard measures derived from routine data, there appears to be little consistency in hospital rankings on these New Zealand data for the period 2001-2009. However, the methodology of using rankings derived from readily available data--possibly allied with multiple or composite indicator models--has potential for the cross-national comparison of hospital profiles, and assessments in three dimensions provide a more holistic and rounded account of performance.

Too much and too little? Prevalence and extent of antibiotic use in a New Zealand region

OBJECTIVES Although antibiotic use in the community is a significant contributor to resistance, little is known about social patterns of use. This study aimed to explore the use of antibiotics by age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status and rurality. METHODS Data were obtained on all medicines dispensed to ambulatory patients in one isolated town for a year, and data on antibiotics are presented in this paper. Demographic details were obtained from pharmacy records or by matching to a national patient dataset. RESULTS During the study year, 51% of the population received a prescription for one or more antibiotics, and on average people in the region received 10.15 defined daily doses (DDDs). Prevalence of use was higher for females (ratio, 1.18), and for young people (under 25) and the elderly (75 and over), and the amount in DDDs/person/year broadly followed this pattern. Māori (indigenous New Zealanders) were less likely to receive a prescription (48% of the population) than non-Māori (55%) and received smaller quantities on average. Rural Māori, including rural Māori children, received few prescriptions and low quantities of antibiotics compared with other population groups. CONCLUSIONS The level of antibiotic use in the general population is high, despite campaigns to try to reduce unnecessary use. The prevalence of acute rheumatic fever is high amongst rural Māori, and consequently treatment guidelines recommend prophylactic use of antibiotics for sore throat in this population. This makes the comparatively very low level of use of antibiotics amongst rural Māori children very concerning.

Use of, and attitudes to, clinical priority assessment criteria in elective surgery in New Zealand.

Objectives: To describe the ways patients access elective surgery in New Zealand, and to understand the use of, and attitudes to, clinical priority assessment criteria (CPAC) in determining access to publicly funded elective surgery. Methods: A qualitative study in selected New Zealand localities. A purposive sample of general practitioners, surgeons and administrators in publicly funded hospitals were interviewed. Data were analysed by a process of thematic analysis. Results: Sixty-five interviews were completed. General practitioners had a key role in determining which patients were seen in the public sector and, by utilising strategies to actively advocate for patients, influenced both waiting times for first assessment by surgeons and for surgery. CPAC had been developed as decision support guides with the intention that they would provide transparency and equity in determining access. However, there was variation in the way CPAC were being used both in score construction and in the influence of the score on access to surgery. The management of the hospital system also limited the extent to which CPAC could be used to prioritise patients for surgery. Conclusions: Variability in the use of CPAC tools meant that at the time of the study they did not provide a transparent and equitable method of determining access to surgery. This highlights the difficulties in developing and implementing CPAC and suggests that further development is difficult in the absence of evidence to identify patients who will benefit the most from surgery.

In place of fear: aligning health care planning with system objectives to achieve financial sustainability

The financial sustainability of publicly funded health care systems is a challenge to policymakers in many countries as health care absorbs an ever increasing share of both national wealth and government spending. New technology, aging populations and increasing public expectations of the health care system are often cited as reasons why health care systems need ever increasing funding as well as reasons why universal and comprehensive public systems are unsustainable. However, increases in health care spending are not usually linked to corresponding increases in need for care within populations. Attempts to promote financial sustainability of systems such as limiting the range of services is covered or the groups of population covered may compromise their political sustainability as some groups are left to seek private cover for some or all services. In this paper, an alternative view of financial sustainability is presented which identifies the failure of planning and management of health care to reflect needs for care in populations and to integrate planning and management functions for health care expenditure, health care services and the health care workforce. We present a Health Care Sustainability Framework based on disaggregating the health care expenditure into separate planning components. Unlike other approaches to planning health care expenditure, this framework explicitly incorporates population health needs as a determinant of health care requirements, and provides a diagnostic tool for understanding the sources of expenditure increase.

Equity of access to elective surgery: reflections from NZ clinicians

Objectives To explore factors potentially influencing equitable access to elective surgery in New Zealand by describing clinicians’ perceptions of equity and the factors they consider when prioritising patients for elective surgery. Methods A qualitative study in selected New Zealand localities. A purposive sample of 49 general practitioners, specialists and registrars were interviewed. Data were analysed thematically. Results General practitioners described unequal opportunities for patients to access primary and secondary care and, in particular, private sector elective surgery. They felt that socio-economically disadvantaged patients were less able to advocate for themselves and were more vulnerable to being lost to the elective surgical booking system as well as being less able to access private care. Both GPs and secondary care clinicians described situations where they would personally advocate for individual patients to improve their access. Advocacy was related to clinicians’ perceptions of the “value” that patients would receive from the surgery and patients” needs for public sector funding. Conclusions The structure of the health system contributes to inequities in access to elective care in New Zealand. Subjective decision making by clinicians has the potential to advantage or disadvantage patients through the weighting clinicians place on socio-demographic factors when making rationing decisions. Review of the potential structural barriers to equitable access, further public debate and guidance for clinicians on the relative importance of socio-demographic factors in deciding access to rationed services are required for allocation of services to be fair.

Assessing the capacity of the health services research community in Australia and New Zealand

BackgroundIn order to profile the health services research community in Australia and New Zealand and describe its capacity, a web-based survey was administered to members of the Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand (HSRAANZ) and delegates of the HSRAANZs Third Health Services Research and Policy Conference.ResultsResponses were received from 191 individuals (68%). The responses of the 165 (86%) who conducted or managed health services research indicated that the health services research community in Australia and New Zealand is characterised by highly qualified professionals who have come to health services research via a range of academic and professional routes (including clinical backgrounds), the majority of whom are women aged between 35 and 54 who have mid- to senior- level appointments. They are primarily employed in universities and, to a lesser extent, government departments and health services. Although most are employed in full time positions, many are only able to devote part of their time to health services research, often juggling this with other professional roles. They rely heavily on external funding, as only half have core funding from their employing institution and around one third have employment contracts of one year or less. Many view issues around building the capacity of the health services research community and addressing funding deficits as crucial if health services research is to be translated into policy and practice. Despite the difficulties they face, most are positive about the support and advice available from peers in their work settings, and many are actively contributing to knowledge through academic and other written outputs.ConclusionIf health services research is to achieve its potential in Australia and New Zealand, policy-makers and funders must take the concerns of the health services research community seriously, foster its development, and contribute to maximising its capacity through a sustainable approach to funding. There is a clear need for a strategic approach, where the health services research community collaborates with competitive granting bodies and government departments to define and fund a research agenda that balances priority-driven and investigator-driven research and which provides support for training and career development.

Clinicians’ reported use of clinical priority assessment criteria and their attitudes to prioritization for elective surgery: a cross‐sectional survey

Objectives:  To explore the attitudes of clinicians working in New Zealand publicly funded hospitals towards prioritizing patients for elective surgery, and their reported use of clinical priority assessment criteria (CPAC).

Who Pays What for Primary Health Care? Patterns and Determinants of the Fees Paid by Patients in a Mixed Public-Private Financing Model

The New Zealand government introduced a Primary Health Care Strategy (PHCS) in 2001 aimed at improving access to primary health care, improving health, and reducing inequalities in health. The Strategy represented a substantive increase in health funding by government and a move from a targeted to a universal funding model. This paper uses representative national survey data to examine the distribution of fees paid for primary health care by different individuals under the mixed public-private financing model in place prior to the introduction of PHCS. Using multivariate regression analysis, we find that fees do vary, with people who might be expected to have greater needs paying less. However, apart from people with diabetes, there is no direct link between self-reported health status and fees paid. The findings indicate that a mixed public-private financing model can result in a fee structure which recognises differences across different population groups. The findings also provide a baseline against which changes in funding brought about by the PHCS can be evaluated.