Premium
Rationing healthcare in New Zealand: the use of clinical guidelines
Author(s) -
Feek Colin M
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
medical journal of australia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.904
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1326-5377
pISSN - 0025-729X
DOI - 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2000.tb139273.x
Subject(s) - government (linguistics) , health care , rationing , business , public health , medicine , medical emergency , nursing , economic growth , philosophy , linguistics , economics
New Zealand has used the development of clinical guidelines as a means to determine patient eligibility for publicly funded services A 1991 “Green and White Paper, Your health and the public health. A statement of government health policy , advised that healthcare services in New Zealand could be rationed by a simple list. The Health and Disability Services Act 1993 provided a framework for resource allocation. The Core Services Committee rejected the “Oregon approach” of using a simple list to determine what condition/treatment pairs should be funded, preferring the development of clinical guidelines as a basis for assessment. Clinical priority assessment criteria derived from guidelines are used to define the degree of clinical benefit for public funding. Criteria have been developed for entry into end‐stage renal failure programs, access to coronary artery surgery, and entry into booking systems for other elective services. The development of clinical criteria to define access to services has had a difficult road, but is a start in defining public expectations of New Zealand's healthcare system.