Continuity through change: The rhetoric and reality of health reform in New Zealand
Introduction
New Zealand, like most other developed economies, has struggled to establish the best way of organising and delivering publicly financed health care services. While retaining its commitment to general taxation as the principal means for financing health care, there have been several major changes to the structure of the publicly financed health system. Each wave of reform has reflected the particular political ideology of the government in power at the time, in particular, views about the appropriate role of the state and the market in the health sector. Taken at face value, these reforms might be viewed as radical U-turns in the way health services were organised and delivered. The aim of this paper is to examine what elements of the health system were affected in practice by these structural changes, and to identify the extent to which the stated goals of reformers have disguised the degree of continuity between reform eras.
The paper begins with a brief overview of the New Zealand health system, and of the various waves of reform that have been introduced in recent years. We then examine the depth of change, and consider which important dimensions of the system have continued unchanged throughout the reform period. The third section attempts to tease out the reality from the rhetoric. Has New Zealand been “to market and back” as the rhetoric would have it, or have the changes been somewhat less dramatic? Finally, we reflect upon the legacies of the reform era and consider what further changes are currently being made to the public health system in New Zealand.
Section snippets
Overview of the New Zealand health system and recent reforms
The New Zealand health system is fundamentally a tax-based health service: 78% of total health expenditure is financed from public sources (Ministry of Health, 2004). A further 16% of expenditure comes from out-of-pocket payments and 6% from private health insurance. Most hospital services are delivered in state-owned hospitals, while primary health services are provided by self-employed private practitioners, usually in group practices. Many other community-based services are also delivered by
The depth of change
The above account implies fundamental and far-reaching changes to the way in which health services are organised in New Zealand. However, while the administrative structures, governance arrangements, legal frameworks and allocation of responsibilities have changed with each new round of reform, many of the underlying features of the system have remained untouched. Indeed, it seems likely that some patients using the public health system remain quite unaware of the changes that have occurred:
The rhetoric and the reality
The change to, and abandonment of, the quasi-market implies some ‘boomerang’ effects in policy in (at least) three key areas: from cooperation to competition (and back); from integration of the roles of purchaser and provider to contractual arrangements (and back); and from local decision-making to centralised decision-making (and back). However, a closer examination of the way that the system has worked in practice reveals that these swings have been less dramatic than might at first appear.
Discussion
This paper has argued that, while the New Zealand health system has gone through a series of structural changes, the depth and impact of these changes have often been more apparent than real. Moreover, the reforms have tended to disguise the degree of continuity that has spanned the reform eras.
Arguably, the New Zealand experiment with supply side competition was based on an overly simple set of assumptions about the gains in quality and efficiency that could be made by introducing a
Conclusion
New Zealand has not, in fact, been “to market and back” as the rhetoric would have us believe. As we have demonstrated, many of the elements of the structural changes — of cooperation and competition, of vertical integration and a purchase–provider separation, and of central and local control — have coexisted through periods of reform. Furthermore, many of the key influences and arrangements in the health sector were never the focus of reform: continuities have endured throughout the reform
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the editor and two anonymous peer reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
References (30)
- et al.
Contracting for health services in a public health system: the New Zealand experience
Health Policy
(2004) - et al.
Lost in the market? A survey of senior public health service managers in New Zealand's ‘reforming’ health system
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
(1996) Charging for health services — some anecdotes from the antipodes
- et al.
Market concentration in secondary health services under a purchaser–provider splitthe New Zealand experience
Health Economics
(1997) The health reformsto market and back?
- et al.
Public health at the crossroads
(1997) - Clarke, D., Howells, J., Wellingham, J., & Gribben, B. (2003). Integrating healthcare: the Counties Manukau experience....
- Coalition Government. (1996). Policy area: health. Wellington: Coalition...
Grasping the nettlepolices for general practice
Crown Health Enterprisesbriefing to the incoming minister
(1996)
Reform and counter reformhow sustainable is New Zealand's latest health system restructuring?
Journal of Health Services Research and Policy
Reforming New Zealand health care
New Zealand's new health sector reformsback to the future? British Medical Journal
The New Zealand health reforms in context
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Policy implementation and modification
Cited by (44)
Institutional racism in public health contracting: Findings of a nationwide survey from New Zealand
2018, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :Government policies and guidelines (Controller and Auditor-General, 2006a; Ministry of Economic Development, 2007, 2010) provide no rationale for inconsistencies in treatment of cohorts of public health providers. The differential treatment uncovered in this study may reflect i) the pressure of portfolio managers juggling large workloads, ii) the impact of perpetual restructuring of the New Zealand health sector (Ashton et al., 2005; Gauld, 2009) or iii) unconscious bias (Ross, 2014). The authors maintain that whatever the rationale, circumstances, motivations or intent of the government officials, their bureaucratic superiors and political leaders, the outcomes remain consistent with definitions of institutional racism.
Purchaser-provider splits in health care-The case of Finland
2013, Health PolicyCitation Excerpt :In these countries PPS was implemented in the early 1990s and was mainly applied to specialized health care services (excluding A&E services). The purchasing organizations in these countries have mainly been regional or national, although the arrangements have gone through several reforms since the early 1990s [4]. In England purchasing is mainly primary care – based and currently implemented by Clinical Commissioning Groups.
New Zealand's post-2008 health system reforms: Toward re-centralization of organizational arrangements
2012, Health PolicyCitation Excerpt :Yet, at USD2983.00 per capita, New Zealand still spent below the OECD average of USD3233 [1]. Through the 1990s and 2000s, successive governments variously restructured the organizational arrangements for planning, purchasing and providing New Zealand's health services [2,3]. In line with trends elsewhere, the focus of reforms in the 1990s was on stimulating competition at both the purchasing and provider levels of the health system in the hope that this would improve quality and efficiency while curtailing government expenditure.
The use of standard contracts in the English National Health Service: A case study analysis
2011, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :A long-standing debate on the efficiency of public service provision led to the introduction in the early 1990s of market type reforms in public sector services in a number of developed countries including the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden (Anell, 1995; Ashton, Mays, & Devlin, 2005; Enthoven, 1985; OECD, 1995; Randall & Williams, 2006; Siverbo, 2004; Yeatman, 1997).
New Zealand health system: universalism struggles with persisting inequities
2019, The LancetCitation Excerpt :CHEs were renamed Hospital and Health Services and their for-profit status was removed. Although contracting for services remained in place, the HFA was required to work more collaboratively with providers in planning services and agreeing on the volume of services to be delivered, and quality indicators.11 Subsidies for GP services and pharmaceuticals were increased for children younger than age 6 years.12
Reputations count: Why benchmarking performance is improving health care across the world
2019, Health Economics, Policy and Law