Better, sooner, more convenient health care in Midlands

Better, sooner, more convenient health care in Midlands Better, sooner, more convenient health care in Midlands

nzdoctor.co.nz
from nzdoctor.co.nz More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

8 Funding requirements (total picture)• Extensive mapping and flow processing.• RIP (Rapid Implementation Process) – shutdown + all staff, partners and patient involvement.• Facilitated RIP.• Contracting, system and staffing amendments.Devolved Service Cost ($)Discharge Process $2,545,000Needs assessment Service Coordination (only dealing with acute demand relatedissues as opposed to disability)$365,000Diagnostics (may cut by disease state) $13,200,000Nurse Educators $2,008,000Post Natal Care $420,000Well Child/Tamariki Ora $6,440,000Community Nursing $27,750,000Vision & Hearing Technicians $700,000b4 school $916,000Immunisation Services (Outreach and Mobile) $2,503,000Family Violence $353,000Breast Screening (coordination/budget for publicly funded) $270,000Smoking Cessation $499,000Community CVD Management $430,000Nurse Specialists (including Healthright Mobile Nurses) $100,000Occupational Therapy (some but not all) $1,495,000Physiotherapy (some but not all) $2,180,000Social Workers $506,000Diabetes Services (some but not all) $350,000Sexual Health $2,543,000Podiatry $280,000Speech Therapy $315 000This list is not exhaustive and the final detailed list will be driven by the supporting business case117

Funding requirements (total picture)8Primary health does not exist in isolation.The challenge for primary health is to shift to a wellness model of care. This shift will bear fruitdirectly in terms of better, sooner, more convenient access to primary heath services; it will also havea major impact on the prevalence of chronic conditions and the resulting acute demand.It is this reduction on demand in the secondary system that makes the implementation of structuressimilar to the Midlands IFHC model commonplace in countries where economic triggers supportshifts in funding from secondary to primary, if they reduce the overall cost of healthcare.A good example of this is the Group Health Medical Home model. Because the Group Healthsystem funds services through the line, they are able to allocate additional funds to the delivery ofprimary health in the knowledge that a healthier community will lead to reduced demand, and cost,in the secondary environment resulting in a net gain to Group Health.Our response to the challenge of contributing to a reduction in acute demand is similarly not for theoverall system to spend more. However, we do need to be able to shift resources and funding toPrimary Health when and where it will unlock an overall system-wide cost saving.It should also be recognised that changes in the performance of Primary Care may lead to shifts inthe funding requirements within the District Health Boards’ portfolio of services and providers.Where these shifts result in a saving to the secondary system we propose the creation of a rebatestructure to allow Primary health to continue to reinvest in activities that will create an overall savingfor the health system.It is therefore proposed that the devolution of funding is made within a partnering arrangementwith the individual District Health Boards where the total funding within any particular District HealthBoard area is economically neutral, and the efficiencies within the service delivery can be appliedwhere they best deliver better, sooner, more convenient health care.The collaboration between Primary and the District Health Boards will provide;• A holistic view of funding and planning across the health system.• A shared common vision for the provision of health services.• The most efficient use of funding.• The avoidance of duplication of health service activity.• A simpler contracting environment for allied health providers.• Improved health system performance.118

Fund<strong>in</strong>g requirements (total picture)8Primary <strong>health</strong> does not exist <strong>in</strong> isolation.The challenge for primary <strong>health</strong> is to shift to a wellness model of <strong>care</strong>. This shift will bear fruitdirectly <strong>in</strong> terms of better, <strong>sooner</strong>, <strong>more</strong> <strong>convenient</strong> access to primary heath services; it will also havea major impact on the prevalence of chronic conditions and the result<strong>in</strong>g acute demand.It is this reduction on demand <strong>in</strong> the secondary system that makes the implementation of structuressimilar to the <strong>Midlands</strong> IFHC model commonplace <strong>in</strong> countries where economic triggers supportshifts <strong>in</strong> fund<strong>in</strong>g from secondary to primary, if they reduce the overall cost of <strong>health</strong><strong>care</strong>.A good example of this is the Group Health Medical Home model. Because the Group Healthsystem funds services through the l<strong>in</strong>e, they are able to allocate additional funds to the delivery ofprimary <strong>health</strong> <strong>in</strong> the knowledge that a <strong>health</strong>ier community will lead to reduced demand, and cost,<strong>in</strong> the secondary environment result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a net ga<strong>in</strong> to Group Health.Our response to the challenge of contribut<strong>in</strong>g to a reduction <strong>in</strong> acute demand is similarly not for theoverall system to spend <strong>more</strong>. However, we do need to be able to shift resources and fund<strong>in</strong>g toPrimary Health when and where it will unlock an overall system-wide cost sav<strong>in</strong>g.It should also be recognised that changes <strong>in</strong> the performance of Primary Care may lead to shifts <strong>in</strong>the fund<strong>in</strong>g requirements with<strong>in</strong> the District Health Boards’ portfolio of services and providers.Where these shifts result <strong>in</strong> a sav<strong>in</strong>g to the secondary system we propose the creation of a rebatestructure to allow Primary <strong>health</strong> to cont<strong>in</strong>ue to re<strong>in</strong>vest <strong>in</strong> activities that will create an overall sav<strong>in</strong>gfor the <strong>health</strong> system.It is therefore proposed that the devolution of fund<strong>in</strong>g is made with<strong>in</strong> a partner<strong>in</strong>g arrangementwith the <strong>in</strong>dividual District Health Boards where the total fund<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> any particular District HealthBoard area is economically neutral, and the efficiencies with<strong>in</strong> the service delivery can be appliedwhere they best deliver better, <strong>sooner</strong>, <strong>more</strong> <strong>convenient</strong> <strong>health</strong> <strong>care</strong>.The collaboration between Primary and the District Health Boards will provide;• A holistic view of fund<strong>in</strong>g and plann<strong>in</strong>g across the <strong>health</strong> system.• A shared common vision for the provision of <strong>health</strong> services.• The most efficient use of fund<strong>in</strong>g.• The avoidance of duplication of <strong>health</strong> service activity.• A simpler contract<strong>in</strong>g environment for allied <strong>health</strong> providers.• Improved <strong>health</strong> system performance.118

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!