Core services and priority-setting: the New Zealand experience

Like people in other countries, New Zealanders have been struggling with the issue of how to decide which health services should be delivered and to whom. The government has established a Core Services Committee to advise on core services, that is, those health care and disability support services to be made available on affordable terms and without unreasonable waiting time. Such a core has a similar role to a standard package of benefits within a managed competition framework. Services not in the core would be left to individuals' own responsibility. Specific objectives for a core are to promote accountability of purchasers, to make explicit the services that are core and those that are not, to promote an efficient and equitable allocation of resources, to limit government expenditure on health care and to involve the public in decision-making. A number of different options for defining a core are identified, and the work undertaken so far is discussed. The original concept of a core has not been implemented in New Zealand. The Core Services Committee has established broad priorities and facilitated a series of consensus development conferences to provide advice on the effectiveness of services. Some of the committee's recommendations have been incorporated into policy guidelines, which set out what the government expects of purchasers. These guidelines include priority areas for health gains, service obligations and principles for purchasing. Service obligations are not sufficiently detailed to meet the specific objectives of a core and do not meet equity objectives, as they allow in effect each of the four purchasers to develop their own core of services. The key issue for the government now is to decide whether to allow RHAs flexibility in determining their own priorities or whether a national approach to efficiency and equity is to be preferred.