2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.12.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Explicit rationing of elective services: implementing the New Zealand reforms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
49
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
49
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This outcome was not anticipated for three reasons. First, the policy intention was that CPAC tools would aid decision making and as such would be used in the consultation as decisions were made (Dew et al . 2005).…”
Section: Methodological Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This outcome was not anticipated for three reasons. First, the policy intention was that CPAC tools would aid decision making and as such would be used in the consultation as decisions were made (Dew et al . 2005).…”
Section: Methodological Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An evaluation of the elective services project, however, reported that surgeons claim to use the tools in a variety of ways – from deploying them as strict protocols, to filling them out once a decision had already been made (Dew et al . 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Explicit prioritisation has been implemented by means of scoring systems and point-count measures for the management of waiting lists, for instance for elective surgical patients in the UK, New Zealand and Canada [15][16][17][18][19]. In an evaluation study on the New Zealand health care reforms the prioritisation was found to be more explicit and access to treatment had changed, but there was some resistance to the use of the new methods [20].…”
Section: Description Of the Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whether or not this is a fair assessment, the focus on waiting lists has encouraged governments and hospitals to introduce processes to monitor and manage waiting lists for publicly funded health services. For example, in 1996, New Zealand trialled "financially sustainable thresholds" for elective surgery, where health services could determine the number of elective surgeries performed based on their ability to fund them [9,10]. In 2004, Australia introduced the national waiting time targets for elective surgery performed in public hospitals [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%