Recent developments in the funding and organisation of the New Zealand health system

Understanding the barriers and facilitators that influence access to quality cardiovascular care for rural Indigenous peoples: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Māori (the Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) are disproportionately represented in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevalence, morbidity and mortality rates, and are less likely to receive evidence-based CVD healthcare. Rural Māori experience additional barriers to treatment access, poorer health outcomes and a more significant burden of CVD risk factors compared with non-Māori and Māori living in urban areas. Importantly, these inequities are similarly experienced by Indigenous peoples in other nations impacted by colonisation. Given the scarcity of available literature, we are conducting a scoping review of literature exploring barriers and facilitators in accessing quality CVD healthcare for rural Māori and other Indigenous peoples in nations impacted by colonisation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A scoping review will be conducted to identify and map the extent of research available and identify any gaps in the literature. This review will be underpinned by Kaupapa Māori Research methodology and will be conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) methodological framework. A database search of MEDLINE (OVID), PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, CINAHL Plus, Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre and NZResearch.org will be used to explore empirical research literature. A grey literature search will also be conducted. Two authors will independently review and screen search results in an iterative manner. The New Zealand Ministry of Health Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) Framework principles will be used as a framework to summarise and construct a narrative of existing literature. Existing literature will also be appraised using the CONSolIDated critERia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous Peoples (CONSIDER) statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has not been sought for this review as we are using publicly available data. We will publish this protocol and the findings of our review in an open-access peer-reviewed journal. This protocol has been registered on Open Science Framework (DOI:10.17605/osf.io/xruhy).

General practice and the New Zealand health reforms--lessons for Australia?

New Zealand's health sector has undergone three significant restructures within 10 years. The most recent has involved a Primary Health Care Strategy, launched in 2001. Primary Health Organisations (PHOs), administered by 21 District Health Boards, are the local structures for implementing the Primary Health Care Strategy. Ninety-three percent of the New Zealand population is now enrolled within 79 PHOs, which pose a challenge to the well-established Independent Practitioner Associations (IPAs).

Although there was initial widespread support for the philosophy underlying the Primary Health Care Strategy, there are concerns amongst general practitioners (GPs) and their professional organisations relating to its implementation. These centre around 6 main issues:

1. Loss of autonomy

2. Inadequate management funding and support

3. Inconsistency and variations in contracting processes

4. Lack of publicity and advice around enrolment issues

5. Workforce and workload issues

6. Financial risks

On the other hand, many GPs are feeling positive regarding the opportunities for PHOs, particularly for being involved in the provision of a wider range of community health services. Australia has much to learn from New Zealand's latest health sector and primary health care reforms.

The key lessons concern:

• the need for a national primary health care strategy

• active engagement of general practitioners and their professional organisations

• recognition of implementation costs

• the need for infrastructural support, including information technology and quality systems

• robust management and governance arrangements

• issues related to critical mass and population/distance trade offs in service delivery models

Restructuring primary health care markets in New Zealand: from welfare benefits to insurance markets

BACKGROUND

New Zealand's Primary Health Care Strategy (NZPHCS) was introduced in 2002. Its features are substantial increases in government funding delivered as capitation payments, and newly-created service-purchasing agencies. The objectives are to reduce health disparities and to improve health outcomes.

ANALYSIS

The NZPHCS changes New Zealand's publicly-funded primary health care payments from targeted welfare benefits to universal, risk-rated insurance premium subsidies. Patient contributions change from fee-for-service top-ups to insurance premium top-ups, and are collected by service providers who, depending upon their contracts with purchasers, may also be either insurance agents or risk-bearing insurance companies. The change invokes the tensions associated with allocating risk-bearing amongst providers, patients and insurance companies that accompany all insurance-based funding instruments. These include increases in existing incentives for over-consumption and new incentives for insurers to limit their exposure to variations in patient health states by engaging in active patient pool selection. The New Zealand scheme is complex, but closely resembles United States insurance-based, risk-rated managed care schemes. The key difference is that unlike classic managed care models, where provider remuneration is determined by the insurer, the historic right for general practitioners to autonomously set patient charges alters the fiscal incentives normally available to managed care organisations. Consequently, the insurance role is being devolved to individual service providers with very small patient pools, who must recoup the premium top-ups from insured individuals. Premium top-ups are being collected only from those individuals consuming care, in proportion to the number of times care is sought. Co-payments thus constitute perfectly risk-rated premium levies set by inefficiently small insurers, raising questions about the efficiency and equity of a 'universal' insurance system pooling total population demands and costs. The efficacy of using financial incentives to constrain costs and encourage innovation when providers retain the right to arbitrarily recoup costs directly from patients, is also questioned.

RESULTS

Initial evidence suggests that total costs are higher than initially expected, and prices to some patients have risen substantially under the NZPHCS. Limited competition and NZPHCS governance requirements mean current institutional arrangements are unlikely to facilitate efficiency improvements. System design changes therefore appear indicated.