A key aspect of the New Zealand health reforms was the proposed development of an explicit core of services to which all New Zealanders would have access. A range of approaches has been taken by the government, its advisers, purchasers and providers to describe sets of services to which New Zealanders are to have access. The development of an explicit core aims to promote equity of access to services, to ensure that those services available are those that are the most cost-effective and the services New Zealanders feel to be the most important, and to clarify entitlements to publicly funded health care. This paper describes the current approaches that are being used to define core services in New Zealand, discusses the reasons behind some of the choices made and notes some key issues for further policy debate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
OECD. The reform of health care systems: A review of seventeen OECD countries. No. 5. Paris: OECD, 1994.
2.
SaltmanR Bvon OtterC.Implementing planned markets in health care: Balancing social and economic responsibility. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1995.
3.
Jerome-ForgetMWhiteJWienerJ.Health care reform through internal markets: Experience and proposals. Montreal: Brookings Institution, 1995.
4.
MooneyG HGerardKDonaldsonCFarrarS.Priority setting in purchasing: Some practical guidelines. Birmingham: NAHAT, 1992.
5.
TunbridgeM, ed. Rationing of health care in medicine. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1993.
6.
CoastJDonovanJFrankelS, eds. Priority setting: The health care debate. Chichester: Wiley, 1996.
7.
MaynardA.The economics of rationing in health care. In: TunbridgeM, ed. Rationing of health care in medicine. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1993: 1–12.
8.
UptonS.Your health and the public health: A statement of government health policy. Wellington: Minister of Health, 1991.
9.
EnthovenA.Theory and practice of managed competition in health care finance. Lectures in economics, theory, institutions, policy: G. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1988.
10.
EnthovenA.The history and principles of managed competition. Health Affairs1993; 12 (suppl): 24–48.
11.
National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services. Core services 1993/94. Wellington: National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services, 1992.
12.
CummingJ.Core services and priority setting: The New Zealand experience. Health Policy1994; 29 (1,2): 41–60.
13.
National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services. Fourth annual report. Wellington: National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services, 1995.
14.
Minister of Health. The core debate: Stage one: How we define the core. Wellington: Minister of Health, 1991.
15.
Oregon Health Services Commission. Prioritization of health services: A report to the Governor and the Legislature. Salem: Oregon Health Services Commission, 1991.
16.
National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services. The best of health 2: How we decide on the health and disability support services we value most. Wellington: National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services, 1993.
17.
Government Committee on Choices in Health Care. Choices in health care. Rijswijk: Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs, 1992.
18.
Bridgeport Group. The core debate: Stage one: How we define the core: Review of submissions. Wellington: Department of Health, 1992.
19.
National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Services. Core services for 1995/96. Wellington: National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Services, 1994.
20.
SheldonT ABorowitzM.Changing the measure of quality in the NHS: From purchasing activity to purchasing protocols. Quality in Health Care1993; 2: 149–150.
21.
KlazingaN.Compliance with practice guidelines: Clinical autonomy revisited. Health Policy1994; 28: 51–66.
22.
ConeyS.Hard core health: Has the task of defining core health services ended up in the too-hard basket?Listener1994; 4 June: 34–37.
23.
PezaroD.Empty promises and inadequate funds. New Zealand Medical Association Newsletter1996; 143 (9 February): 1–2.
24.
HonJ. Shipley. Policy guidelines for regional health authorities 1996/97. Wellington: Minister of Health, undated.
25.
Working party for the guidelines for guidelines' initiative. Guidelines for guidelines: Guiding principles to assist in the development, dissemination, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Draft document. Auckland: Working party for the ‘Guidelines for Guidelines’ initiative, 1996.
26.
Southern Regional Health Authority. Statement of intent 1994/95. Dunedin: Southern Regional Health Authority, undated.
27.
North Health. North Health: Services to meet specific health needs, medical and surgical components of service, 1994/95 COS. Auckland: North Health, 1994.
28.
Ministry of Health. Purchasing for your health 1994/95. Wellington: Ministry of Health, undated.
29.
Southern Regional Health Authority. Mammography pilot launched in Christchurch. Southern Regional Health Authority News1995; December: 4.
30.
TylerV.How to decide where savings go?GP Weekly1996; 29 May: 3.
31.
National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services. Who should get treatment first — what the public thinks. The Core Debater 1995; February: 2–4.
32.
Office of the Minister of Health. Media release: Funding boost to tackle waiting lists. Wellington: Minister of Health, 1996.
33.
OrchardC.Comparing healthcare outcomes. British Medical Journal1994; 308: 1493–1496.
34.
House of Commons Health Committee. First report: Priority setting in the NHS: Purchasing, vol 1. London: House of Commons, 1994/95.
35.
Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission. Priorities in health care: Ethics, economy, implementation. Swedish Government Official Reports 1995:5. Stockholm: Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, 1995.
36.
CummingJHawkinsLJensenK.Resource allocation in the reformed health sector. Paper presented at the Australian Health Economics Society 17th Annual Conference, July1995.
37.
Ministry of Health. Review of 1994/95 RHA contracting. Wellington: Ministry of Health, undated.
38.
HurleyJBirchSEylesJ.Geographically-decentralized planning and management in health care: Some informational issues and their efficiency. Social Science and Medicine1995; 41 (1): 3–11.
39.
LaugesenMSalmondG.New Zealand health care: A background. Health Policy1994; 29 (1,2): 11–23.
40.
ScottC.Guest editorial. Health Manager1995; issue 2 no 2, (June): 2–3.
41.
SheeranG.Health cover could double. The Sunday Star-Times1996; September 15: D1.
42.
StirlingP.Condition critical. The Listener1996; 28 September: 18–22.
