Exploration of funding models to support hybridisation of Australian primary health care organisations
Sandeep Reddy1 School of Medicine, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
Correspondence to: Dr Sandeep Reddy, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds Campus, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, Vic. 3220, Australia. Email: sandeep.reddy@deakin.edu.au
Journal of Primary Health Care 9(3) 208-211 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC17014
Published: 25 August 2017
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2017.
This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
Primary Health Care (PHC) funding in Australia is complex and fragmented. The focus of PHC funding in Australia has been on volume rather than comprehensive primary care and continuous quality improvement. As PHC in Australia is increasingly delivered by hybrid style organisations, an appropriate funding model that matches this set-up while addressing current issues with PHC funding is required. This article discusses and proposes an appropriate funding model for hybrid PHC organisations.
References
[1] Wood T. Hybrid organizations. RAE 2010; 50 241–7.[2] Lan Z, Rainey HG. Goals, rules, and effectiveness in public, private, and hybrid organizations: more evidence and frequent assertions about differences. J Public Adm Res Theory 1992; 2 5–28.
[3] Doherty B, Haugh H, Lyon F. Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: a review and research agenda. Int J Manag Rev 2014; 16 417–36.
| Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: a review and research agenda.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Oliver-Baxter J, Brown L. Primary health care funding models. Research Roundup, issue 33. Adelaide: Primary Health Care Research & Information Service; 2013.
[5] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Health 2016. Canberra, Australia: AIHW; 2016.
[6] Department of Health and Ageing. Primary Health Care Reform in Australia. Canberra, Australia: DoHA; 2009. pp. 8–19.
[7] Australian Government. State of Corporatisation: a report on the corporatisation of general practices in Australia. Canberra, Australia: DoHA; 2012. pp. 5–8.
[8] Australian General Practice Network. Primary Health Care Position Statement: a scoping of the evidence. An update for 2009. Glynde, South Australia: AGPN; 2009:1–25.
[9] Panaretto KS, Wenitong M, Button S, Ring IT. Aboriginal community controlled health services: leading the way in primary care. Med J Aust 2014; 200 649–52.
| Aboriginal community controlled health services: leading the way in primary care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Murrumbidgee Primary Health Network. Activity work plan 2016–2018. Wagga Wagga, NSW: Murrumbidgee PHN; 2016.
[11] World Health Organization Primary health care the New Zealand way. Bull World Health Organ 2008; 86 505–6. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/7/08-030708.pdf
[12] Karré PM. Hybrid organizations: cause or cure? A discussion based on a study in the Dutch waste management sector. In: Blurring Sector Boundaries, Hybrid Organizations and Public Services: Current Issues and Common Ground. Panel 35, XV IRPSM Conference: Value, Innovation and Partnership, 11–13 April 2011, Dublin, Republic of Ireland; 2010.
[13] Scott A, Sivey P, Ait Ouakrim D, et al The effect of financial incentives on the quality of healthcare provided by primary care physicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; CD008451
[14] Flodgren G, Eccles M, Shepperd S, et al An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; CD009255
