Learning from the past to ensure effectiveness, efficiency and equity in primary health care
In the past few years, Australian primary health care (PHC) has experienced a major system restructuring that has created tensions in relation to efficiency, effectiveness and equity, fundamental concepts used to evaluate health systems performance.1 Efficiency refers to making the most of available resources to maximise output,2 effectiveness is meeting the needs of target populations and achieving objectives,1 and equity concerns fairness in the delivery of services and outcomes.1 Our analysis of Medicare Locals (MLs) provides insights into the tensions faced by PHC policy makers and Primary Health Networks (PHNs) when planning for improved population health. Between 2014 and 2015, as part of a 3-year study funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, we conducted an online survey and 50 individual interviews with ML senior staff, which provided in-depth understanding of the challenges and opportunities for the new PHNs. The link to the online survey was sent to the chief executive officers (CEOs) of 61 MLs for distribution among senior staff and board members. To calculate the response rate, we asked CEOs to report on the number of people the survey was sent to, but we did not receive an exact number from all CEOs to calculate the response rate. However, the spread of responses was high across MLs (120 responses from 52 MLs; 86%), which shows that representatives from different MLs participated in the survey.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Begley CE, Lairson DR, Morgan RO, et al. Evaluating the healthcare system: effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. 4th ed. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 2013.
- 2. Chopra S, Meindl P. Supply chain management: strategy, planning, and operation. 5th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2013.
- 3. McDonald J, Cumming J, Harris M, et al. Systematic review of comprehensive primary health care models. Sydney: Research Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales; 2006. http://files.aphcri.anu.edu.au/research/full_report_18476.pdf (accessed May 2017).
- 4. Department of Health and Ageing. Building a 21st century primary health care system: Australia’s first National Primary Health Care Strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010. https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/files/AUS%202010%20Building%20a%2021st%20Century%20Primary%20Health%20Care%20System%2C%20Australia%27s%20First%20National%20Primary%20Health%20Care%20Strategy.pdf (accessed May 2017).
- 5. Horvath J. Review of Medicare Locals: report to the Minister for Health and Minister for Sport. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014. https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/A69978FAABB1225ECA257CD3001810B7/$File/Review-of-Medicare-Locals-may2014.pdf (accessed May 2017).
- 6. Holtom M. The partnership imperative: joint working between social services and health. J Manag Med 2001; 15: 430-445.
- 7. Petsoulas C, Allen P, Checkland K, et al. Views of NHS commissioners on commissioning support provision. Evidence from a qualitative study examining the early development of clinical commissioning groups in England. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e005970.
- 8. Ham C. Health Care Commissioning in the international context: lessons from experience and evidence. Birmingham: Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham; 2008. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dc7/1fa349be0a60ac4600120c897b9a7af5b74f.pdf (accessed May 2017).
- 9. McDonald J, Davies GP, Cumming J, Harris MF. What can the experiences of primary care organisations in England, Scotland and New Zealand suggest about the potential role of divisions of general practice and primary care networks/partnerships in addressing Australian challenges? Aust J Prim Health 2007; 13: 46-55.
- 10. Global Health Initiative. Promoting partnerships to advance GHI objectives: Washington DC: United States Government; 2013. https://www.ghi.gov/principles/docs/promoting-partnerships-to-advance-ghi-objectives.pdf (accessed May 2017).
- 11. Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/final_report/csdh_finalreport_2008_execsumm.pdf (accessed May 2017).
- 12. Lavin T, Metcalfe O. Economic arguments for addressing social determinants of health inequalities: DETERMINE, an EU Consortium for Action on Socio-economic Determinants of Health. Dublin: Institute of Public Health; 2009. http://www.publichealth.ie/files/file/DETERMINE/DETERMINE%20Working%20document%204_Economic%20arguments%20for%20addressing%20social%20determinants%20of%20health%20inequalities.pdf (accessed May 2017).
- 13. Javanparast S, Baum F, Barton E, et al. Medicare Local–Local Health Network partnerships in South Australia: lessons for Primary Health Networks. Med J Aust 2015; 203: 219. <MJA full text>
- 14. Communities and Local Government Committee. Localism: third report of session 2010–12. London: House of Commons; 2011. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/547/547.pdf (accessed May 2017).
- 15. Public Health Association of Australia and Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association. Primary health networks: opportunities, challenges and recommendations. Communique. Canberra: PHAA and AHHA; 2014. https://www.phaa.net.au/documents/item/495 (accessed May 2017).
The study has been funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council grant (APP1064194). Sara Javanparast, Fran Baum, Toby Freeman, Anna Ziersch and Tamara Mackean are chief investigators, and Ronald Labonte and Michael Kidd are associate investigators on this grant. We thank the participants, who shared their thoughts and experiences with us.
No relevant disclosures.