top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

Search

ONE MORE ATTEMPT TO “FIX” THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

Later this week, the Minister of Health is going to announce one more reform of the healthcare system. He had an article in yesterday’s Sunday Star-Times which began with the confident statement that “It’s pretty clear what’s wrong with our health system – long waits for treatment, staff under pressure and a bureaucracy that can get in the way of doctors, nurses and other health workers caring for patients”.


And the implication of his statement is that, on Wednesday, he is going to announce some miracle formula to set things right. “Our health system,” he said, “should not be about structures but about people”. Who could possibly disagree?


I am old enough to remember at least three pretty fundamental attempts to restructure the health system in order to make it more responsive to the needs of New Zealanders but still, apparently, it doesn’t measure up.


The central issue is that, as David Caygill once told me when he was Minister of Health in the late eighties, humankind has only worked out three ways of allocating goods and services.


First, they can be allocated by the price mechanism – and this works pretty well for most goods and services. People are free to buy what they feel like and can afford, at prices which others are willing to sell at. But people don’t want health services provided that way, because that would mean that access to health services would depend entirely on being able to afford them. People would die for lack of relatively inexpensive treatment.


Second, goods and services can be free at point of “purchase”, and that’s largely how the public health service works in New Zealand and many western countries now: people front up when they are unwell, and are treated at no cost to them (as in public hospitals) or at very limited cost to them (as when they visit a general practitioner). The costs are largely picked up by taxpayers and, as the Minister noted in his article, these costs currently represent some 20% of all government spending – a proportion which may get higher as the population ages. The public enjoys the “free” health service but, as with anything which is provided without cost at point of “sale”, is never satisfied with either the quantity or the quality – there are constant complaints about waiting lists for non-life-threatening surgery, or delays in treatment at A & E wards.


The third option, once known as the Oregon approach after the US state which introduced this system, is for taxpayers to provide a wide range of clearly specified treatments free of charge to patients – but limited, or no, support for other treatments. For many situations this system works well, but of course it becomes more and more difficult to maintain the boundary between what taxpayers will fund and what they will not fund. The treatment of very rare but very expensive illnesses is not funded, and this leads to huge political pressures to support those who have these rare but very expensive illnesses – a bit like the approach Pharmac takes in the case of pharmaceuticals.


As David Caygill pointed out to me, the public don’t like any of those options in the case of healthcare – but there aren’t any others!


Having said that, I personally favour the approach Singapore has taken. Singapore requires all citizens to save into a special saving account specifically to fund healthcare, and to cover the cost of their own healthcare from those accounts. They also pay, from those healthcare accounts, a small insurance premium to cover the very expensive medical events which occur very infrequently. I understand there may be a very basic “safety net” for those who are unable to save at all.


The Singaporean system appears to provide a pretty good level of healthcare, with healthcare providers incentivized to compete for “customers” and the public incentivized to look after their own health and use healthcare only as needed. Certainly, by most measures Singaporeans are a healthy lot, while spending about half what New Zealand spends, relative to GDP, on healthcare.


I very much hope, for the sake of all New Zealanders, that the Minister of Health really does come up with a proposal which will provide better healthcare at a similar cost to that currently being borne by taxpayers. I’m not holding my breath however, having seen too many attempts to restructure the health system without actually changing the fundamental cost drivers.


1,972 views26 comments

26 Comments


tjalling.jonker
tjalling.jonker
Apr 19, 2021

the chance the minister of health will come up with a proposal that will improve the health-system/industry are remote, if not nil. without reference to other areas where this government has abysmally failed to deliver, my expectation is based on the history of socialist meddling in the health portfolio.


the best alternative solution i can think of is: do not get sick!

Like

An island nation one party state the size of London with a disciplined and subjugated population is never a good example for anything.


Not a lot of research has gone into this post and I suggest Don has learnt little in his years of overseas junkets.


For example the French health care system is one of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "best overall health care" in the world. In 2017, France spent 11.3% of GDP on health care, or US$5,370 per capita,


Health care is funded by a dual system of health insurance comprising:

• A State-controlled health…


Like
vic alborn
vic alborn
Apr 19, 2021
Replying to

Your reference is the situation today and not to that which I am referring. My memory says it was 5 - 6 years ago and he was male - not the current Governor.

Like

The announcement will be to divert 30% the medical funding away specifically for Maori, to be spent on services non-Maori can't access no matter the state of health of Maori.

Like
roger
roger
Apr 19, 2021
Replying to

It will end finally when enough people understand the serious nature of the threat and get pissed off enough to stand up to it.

Like

Robin Gardiner
Robin Gardiner
Apr 18, 2021

How about this as an alternative We all have insurance for health one that the taxes we now pay to the government covers the cost of. In other words everybody who pays tax has the insurance policy provided with providers being chosen by ourselves just a bit like Kiwi Saver. The insurance policy to cover all people and most proceedures as the public health system now does. On top of this all hospitals to be sold to private health care from which there can and will be competition to provide the best care Private versus Public I know which I would choose. The public would also have the opportunity to increase the amount of cover in their own polici…

Like

Until market forces are allowed to operate unhindered in this space, expect more of the same. Healthcare is no different to any other product or service.

Like
Ian Boag
Ian Boag
Apr 19, 2021
Replying to

It's possible you missed your century ... late 1800's maybe?

Like
bottom of page