Governance, transparency and alignment in the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) 2011 National Health Reform Agreement
Gianluca Veronesi A E , Kirsten Harley B , Paul Dugdale C D and Stephanie D. Short BA Leeds University Business School, The University of Leeds, Maurice Keyworth Building, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
B Faculty of Health Sciences, Cumberland Campus C42, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW 1825, Australia. Email: kirsten.harley@sydney.edu.au; stephanie.short@sydney.edu.au
C Centre for Health Stewardship, The Australian National University, Building 131, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Email: paul.dugdale@anu.edu.au
D Chronic Disease Management, Canberra Hospital and Health Services, Yamba Drive, Garran, ACT 2605, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email: G.Veronesi@lubs.leeds.ac.uk
Australian Health Review 38(3) 288-294 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH13078
Submitted: 23 April 2013 Accepted: 21 January 2014 Published: 8 May 2014
Abstract
Objective This article provides a policy analysis of the Australian government’s National Health Reform Agreement (NHRA) by bringing to the foreground the governance arrangements underpinning the two arms of the national reforms, to primary health care and hospital services.
Methods The article analyses the NHRA document and mandate, and contextualises the changes introduced vis-à-vis the complex characteristics of the Australian health care system. Specifically, it discusses the coherence of the agreement and its underlying objectives, and the consistency and logic of the governance arrangements introduced.
Results The policy analysis highlights the rationalisation of the responsibilities between the Commonwealth and states and territories, the commitment towards a funding arrangement based on uniform measures of performance and the troubled emergence of a more decentralised nation-wide homogenisation of governance arrangements, plus efforts to improve transparency, accountability and statutory support to increase the standards of quality of care and safety.
Conclusions It is suggested that the NHRA falls short of adequately supporting integration between primary, secondary and tertiary health care provision and facilitating greater integration in chronic disease management in primary care. Successfully addressing this will unlock further value from the reforms.
What is known about the topic? The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) 2011 health reforms have introduced governance structures and transparency mechanisms that are unprecedented in the Australian context. There is still a gap in knowledge and overall understanding in relation to their significance and how they will fare given the complex characteristics of the Australian health system.
What does this paper add? This article discusses the positive changes introduced, such as the rationalisation of the relationships between the Commonwealth and states and territories, the introduction of more transparent funding arrangements, the provision of unified governance templates and the potential gains in reducing waiting lists. It also highlights the most glaring shortcoming of the health reforms, which is the missed opportunity to strengthen integration between primary, secondary and tertiary care providers.
What are the implications for practitioners? More effective integration between care providers appears to be one of the greatest challenges ahead. Further changes are needed to make the primary care and secondary and tertiary arms of the health system work together more effectively. Moreover, general practice needs to be brought into a closer working relationship with non-medical primary health and community care to tackle the growing burden of chronic disease.
Additional keyword: secondary and primary health care provision.
References
[1] Council of Australian Governments. National health reform agreement. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing; 2011.[2] Gillard J, Roxon N. National health reform finalised. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing; 2011. Available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-nr-nr142.htm [verified 11 September 2011].
[3] Briggs DS. So they want us to collaborate and innovate: how do we manage that? Asia Pac J Health Manag 2013; 8 4–6.
[4] Palmer GR, Short SD. Healthcare and public policy: an Australian analysis. 4th edn. Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010.
[5] Council of Australian Governments. National health reform agreement: national partnership agreement on improving public hospital services. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing; 2011.
[6] Kidd MR. General practice and the Australian Government’s national health reform plan. Med J Aust 2010; 193 71–4.
| 20642405PubMed |
[7] Penington DG. Does the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission have a real answer for public hospitals? Med J Aust 2009; 191 446–7.
| 19835540PubMed |
[8] Jowsey T, Yen L, Wells R, Leeder S. National Health and Hospital Reform Commission final report and patient-centred suggestions for reform. Aust J Prim Health 2011; 17 162–8.
| National Health and Hospital Reform Commission final report and patient-centred suggestions for reform.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21645472PubMed |
[9] Hall J. Health-care reform in Australia: advancing or side-stepping? Health Econ 2010; 19 1259–63.
| Health-care reform in Australia: advancing or side-stepping?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20938999PubMed |
[10] Council of Australian Governments. National healthcare agreement. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing; 2011.
[11] Donato R, Segal L. The economics of primary healthcare reform in Australia: towards single fundholding through development of primary care organisations. Aust N Z J Public Health 2010; 34 613–19.
| The economics of primary healthcare reform in Australia: towards single fundholding through development of primary care organisations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21134065PubMed |
[12] Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding. Canberra: House of Representatives; 2006.
[13] Sweet M. Australia’s health reform plans focus on hospital financing and governance. BMJ 2010; 340 C1403
[14] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Health expenditure Australia 2009–10. Health and welthfare expenditure series no. 46. Catalogue no. HWE 55. Canberra: AIHW; 2011.
[15] Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Primary health care reform in Australia: report to support Australia’s first national primary health care strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.
[16] World Health Organization (WHO). World health report 2003: shaping the future. Geneva: WHO; 2003.
[17] National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. A healthier future for all Australians: final report june 2009. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.
[18] Bennett CC. A healthier future for all Australians: an overview of the final report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. Med J Aust 2009; 191 383–7.
| 19807629PubMed |
[19] Eagar K. What is activity-based funding? ABF Information Series No. 1. Wollongong: University of Wollongong, Centre for Health Service Development; 2010.
[20] Collier R. Activity-based hospital funding: boon or boondoggle? CMAJ 2008; 178 1407–8.
| Activity-based hospital funding: boon or boondoggle?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18490628PubMed |
[21] Marini G, Street A. A transaction costs analysis of changing contractual relations in the English NHS. Health Policy 2007; 83 17–26.
| A transaction costs analysis of changing contractual relations in the English NHS.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17166619PubMed |
[22] Sussex J, Farrar S. Activity-based funding for National Health Service hospitals in England: managers’ experience and expectations. Eur J Health Econ 2009; 10 197–206.
| Activity-based funding for National Health Service hospitals in England: managers’ experience and expectations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18679733PubMed |
[23] Farrar S, Yi D, Sutton M, Chalkley M, Sussex J, Scott A. Has payment by results affected the way that English hospitals provide care? Difference-in-difference analysis. BMJ 2009; 339 b3047
| Has payment by results affected the way that English hospitals provide care? Difference-in-difference analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19713233PubMed |
[24] Cooper ZN, McGuire A, Jones S, Le Grand J. Equity, waiting times and NHS reforms: retrospective study. BMJ 2009; 339 b3264
| Equity, waiting times and NHS reforms: retrospective study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19729415PubMed |
[25] Healy J, Dugdale P, editors. Patient safety first: responsive regulation in health care. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin; 2009.
[26] Francis R. The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry. HC 947. London: Stationary Office; 2013.
[27] Veronesi G, Keasey K. National Health Service boards of directors and governance models. Public Manage Rev 2011; 13 861–85.
| National Health Service boards of directors and governance models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[28] Dwyer JM. Australian health system restructuring: what problem is being solved? Aust N Z Health Policy 2004; 1 6
| Australian health system restructuring: what problem is being solved?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[29] Liang Z, Short SD, Howard PF, Brown CR. Centralised control and devolved responsibilities: personal experiences of senior health executives on the implementation of the area health management model in New South Wales, 1990–1999. Asia Pac J Health Manag 2006; 1 44–50.
[30] Sweet M. Australia makes a start on primary health care reform, at last. BMJ 2011; 342 d1341
| Australia makes a start on primary health care reform, at last.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21362801PubMed |
[31] Gillespie J. The Gillard health program: reform without change? Inside Story. Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology; 2011.
[32] Holmes B. Citizens’ engagement in policymaking and the design of public services. Research Paper No. 1, 2011–12. Canberra: Parliament Library; 2012.
[33] Bovaird T. Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Adm Rev 2007; 67 846–60.
| Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[34] Dugdale P. Toward lucid health care. J Pharm Pract Res 2012; 42 258–89.
[35] Keleher H. Planning for population health in Australia’s health reform. Aust N Z J Public Health 2011; 35 106–7.
| Planning for population health in Australia’s health reform.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21463402PubMed |
