<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/feeds/latestarticles/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy - Latest Articles</title>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com</link>
        <description>The latest research articles published by Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</description>
        <dc:date>2009-06-24T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/15" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/14" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/13" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/12" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/11" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/10" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/9" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/8" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/7" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/6" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/15">
        <title>Medical decision making for patients with Parkinson disease under Average Cost Criterion</title>
        <description>Parkinson&apos;s disease (PD) is one of the most common disabling neurological disorders and results in substantial burden for patients, their families and the as a whole society in terms of increased health resource use and poor quality of life. For all stages of PD, medication therapy is the preferred medical treatment. The failure of medical regimes to prevent disease progression and to prevent long-term side effects has led to a resurgence of interest in surgical procedures. Partially observable Markov decision models (POMDPs) are a powerful and appropriate technique for decision making. In this paper we applied the model of POMDP&apos;s as a supportive tool to clinical decisions for the treatment of patients with Parkinson&apos;s disease. The aim of the model was to determine the critical threshold level to perform the surgery in order to minimize the total lifetime costs over a patient&apos;s lifetime (where the costs incorporate duration of life, quality of life, and monetary units). Under some reasonable conditions reflecting the practical meaning of the deterioration and based on the various diagnostic observations we find an optimal average cost policy for patients with PD with three deterioration levels.</description>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/15</link>
                <dc:creator>John Goulionis</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Athanassios Vozikis</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:15</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-24T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-15</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1743-8462</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>15</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-24T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/14">
        <title>The Australian preventive health agenda: what will this mean for workforce development?</title>
        <description>The formation of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (NHHRC) and the National Preventative Task Force in 2008, demonstrate a renewed Australian Government commitment to health reform. The re-focus on prevention, bringing it to the centre of health care has significant implications for health service delivery in the primary health care setting, supportive organisational structures and continuing professional development for the existing clinical and public health workforce. It is an opportune time, therefore, to consider new approaches to workforce development aligned to health policy reform. Regardless of the actual recommendations from the NHHRC in June 2009, there will be an emphasis on performance improvements which are accountable and aligned to new preventive health policy, organisational priorites and anticipated improved health outcomes.To achieve this objective there will be a need for the existing population health workforce, primary health care and non-government sectors to increase their knowledge and understanding of prevention, promotion and protection theory and practice within new organisational frameworks and linked to the community. This shift needs to be part of a national health services research agenda, infrastructure and funding which is supportive of quality continuing professional development.This paper discusses policy and practice issues related to workforce development as part of an integrated response to the preventive agenda.</description>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/14</link>
                <dc:creator>Kathleen Lilley</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Donald Stewart</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:14</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-22T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-14</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1743-8462</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>14</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-22T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/13">
        <title>Health facilities at the district level in Indonesia</title>
        <description>Background:
At Independence the Government of Indonesia inherited a weak and unevenly distributed health system to which much of the population had only limited access. In response, the government decided to increase the number of facilities and to locate them closer to the people. To staff these health facilities the government introduced obligatory government service for all new graduates in medicine, nursing and midwifery. Most of these staff also established private practices in the areas in which they were located. The health information system contains little information on the health care facilities established for private practice by these staff. This article reports on the results of enumerating all health facilities in 15 districts in Java.
Methods:
We enumerated all healthcare facilities, public and private, by type in each of 15 districts in Java.
Results:
The enumeration showed a much higher number of healthcare facilities in each district than is shown in most reports and in the health information system which concentrates on public, multi-provider facilities. Across the 15 districts: 86% of facilities were solo-provider facilities for outpatient services; 13% were multi-provider facilities for outpatient services; and 1% were multi-provider facilities offering both outpatient and inpatient services.
Conclusion:
The relatively good distribution of health facilities in Indonesia was achieved through establishing public health centers at the sub-district level and staffing them through a system of compulsory service for doctors, nurses and midwives. Subsequently, these public sector staff also established solo-provider facilities for their own private practice; these solo-provider facilities, of which those for nurses are almost half, comprise the largest category of outpatient care facilities, most are not included in official statistics. Now that Indonesia no longer has mandatory service for newly graduated doctors, nurses and midwives, it will have difficulty maintaining the distribution of facilities and providers established through the 1980s. The current challenge is to envision a new health system that responds to the changing disease patterns as well as the changes in distribution of health facilities.</description>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/13</link>
                <dc:creator>Peter Heywood</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Nida Harahap</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:13</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-18T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-13</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1743-8462</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>13</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-18T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/12">
        <title>Issues facing the future health care workforce: the importance of demand modelling</title>
        <description>This article examines issues facing the future health care workforce in Australia in light of factors such as population ageing. It has been argued that population ageing in Australia is affecting the supply of health care professionals as the health workforce ages and at the same time increasing the demand for health care services and the health care workforce.However, the picture is not that simple. The health workforce market in Australia is influenced by a wide range of factors; on the demand side by increasing levels of income and wealth, emergence of new technologies, changing disease profiles, changing public health priorities and a focus on the prevention of chronic disease. While a strong correlation is observed between age and use of health care services (and thus health care workforce), this is mediated through illness, as typified by the consistent finding of higher health care costs in the months preceding death.On the supply side, the health workforce is highly influenced by policy drivers; both national policies (eg funded education and training places) and local policies (eg work place-based retention policies). Population ageing and ageing of the health workforce is not a dominant influence. In recent years, the Australian health care workforce has grown in excess of overall workforce growth, despite an ageing health workforce. We also note that current levels of workforce supply compare favourably with many OECD countries. The future of the health workforce will be shaped by a number of complex interacting factors.Market failure, a key feature of the market for health care services which is also observed in the health care labour market &#8211; means that imbalances between demand and supply can develop and persist, and suggests a role for health workforce planning to improve efficiency in the health services sector. Current approaches to health workforce planning, especially on the demand side, tend to be highly simplistic. These include historical allocation methods, such as the personnel-to-population ratios which are essentially circular in their rationale rather than evidence-based. This article highlights the importance of evidence-based demand modelling for those seeking to plan for the future Australian health care workforce. A model based on population health status and best practice protocols for health care is briefly outlined.</description>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/12</link>
                <dc:creator>Leonie Segal</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tom Bolton</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:12</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-07T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-12</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1743-8462</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>12</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-07T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/11">
        <title>Treatment costs and priority setting in health care: a qualitative study</title>
        <description>Background:
The aim of this study is to investigate whether the public believes high cost patients should be a lower priority for public health care than low cost patients, other things being equal, in order to maximise health gains from the health budget. Semi-structured group discussions were used to help participants reflect critically upon their own views and gain exposure to alternative views, and in this way elicit underlying values rather than unreflective preferences. Participants were given two main tasks: first, to select from among three general principles for setting health care priorities the one that comes closest to their own views; second, to allocate a limited hospital budget between two groups of imaginary patients. Forty-one people, varying in age, occupation, income and education level, participated in a total of six group discussions with each group comprising between six and eight people.
Results:
After discussion and deliberation, 30 participants rejected the most cost-effective principle for setting priorities, citing reasons such as &apos;moral values&apos; and &apos;a personal belief that we shouldn&apos;t discriminate&apos;. Only three participants chose to allocate the entire hospital budget to the low cost patients. Reasons for allocating some money to inefficient (high cost) patients included &apos;fairness&apos; and the desire to give all patients a &apos;chance&apos;.
Conclusion:
Participants rejected a single-minded focus on efficiency &#8211; maximising health gains &#8211; when setting priorities in health care. There was a concern to avoid strategies that deny patients all hope of treatment, and a willingness to sacrifice health gains for a &apos;fair&apos; public health system.</description>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/11</link>
                <dc:creator>John McKie</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bradley Shrimpton</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jeff Richardson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rosalind Hurworth</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:11</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-06T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-11</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1743-8462</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>11</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-06T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/10">
        <title>Working in disadvantaged communities: What additional competencies do we need?
</title>
        <description>Background:
Residents of socioeconomically disadvantaged locations are more likely to have poor health than residents of socioeconomically advantaged locations and this has been comprehensively mapped in Australian cities. These inequalities present a challenge for the public health workers based in or responsible for improving the health of people living in disadvantaged localities. The purpose of this study was to develop a generic workforce needs assessment tool and to use it to identify the competencies needed by the public health workforce to work effectively in disadvantaged communities.
Methods:
A two-step mixed method process was used to identify the workforce needs. In step 1 a generic workforce needs assessment tool was developed and applied in three NSW Area Health Services using focus groups, key stakeholder interviews and a staff survey. In step 2 the findings of this needs assessment process were mapped against the existing National Health Training Package (HLT07) competencies, gaps were identified, additional competencies described and modules of training developed to fill identified gaps.
Results:
There was a high level of agreement among the AHS staff on the nature of the problems to be addressed but less confidence indentifying the work to be done. Processes for needs assessments, community consultations and adapting mainstream programs to local needs were frequently mentioned as points of intervention. Recruiting and retaining experienced staff to work in these communities and ensuring their safety were major concerns. Workforce skill development needs were seen in two ways: higher order planning/epidemiological skills and more effective working relationships with communities and other sectors. Organisational barriers to effective practice were high levels of annual compulsory training, balancing state and national priorities with local needs and giving equal attention to the population groups that are easy to reach and to those that are difficult to engage. A number of additional competency areas were identified and three training modules developed.
Conclusion:
The generic workforce needs assessment tool was easy to use and interpret. It appears that the public health workforce involved in this study has a high level of understanding of the relationship between the social determinants and health. However there is a skill gap in identifying and undertaking effective intervention.</description>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/10</link>
                <dc:creator>Elizabeth Harris</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mark Harris</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lynne Madden</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Marilyn Wise</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peter Sainsbury</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John MacDonald</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Betty Gill</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:10</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-04-24T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-10</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1743-8462</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>10</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-04-24T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/9">
        <title>A multidimensional classification of public health activity in Australia</title>
        <description>Background:
At present, we have very limited ability to compare public health activity across jurisdictions and countries, or even to ascertain differences in what is considered to be a public health activity. Existing standardised health classifications do not capture important dimensions of public health, which include its functions, the methods and interventions used to achieve these, the health issues and determinants of health that public health activities address, the resources and infrastructure they use, and the settings in which they occur. A classification that describes these dimensions will promote consistency in collecting and reporting information about public health programs, expenditure, workforce and performance. This paper describes the development of an initial version of such a classification.
Methods:
We used open-source Prot&#233;g&#233; software and published procedures to construct an ontology of public health, which forms the basis of the classification. We reviewed existing definitions of public health, descriptions of public health functions and classifications to develop the scope, domain, and multidimensional class structure of the ontology. These were then refined through a series of consultations with public health experts from across Australia, culminating in an initial classification framework.
Results:
The public health classification consists of six top-level classes: public health &apos;Functions&apos;; &apos;Health Issues&apos;; &apos;Determinants of Health&apos;; &apos;Settings&apos;; &apos;Methods&apos; of intervention; and &apos;Resources and Infrastructure&apos;. Existing classifications (such as the international classifications of diseases, disability and functioning and external causes of injuries) can be used to further classify large parts of the classes &apos;Health Issues&apos;, &apos;Settings&apos; and &apos;Resources and Infrastructure&apos;, while new subclass structures are proposed for the classes of public health &apos;Functions&apos;, &apos;Determinants of Health&apos; and &apos;Interventions&apos;.
Conclusion:
The public health classification captures the important dimensions of public health activity. It will facilitate the organisation of information so that it can be used to address questions relating to any of these dimensions, either singly or in combination. The authors encourage readers to use the classification, and to suggest improvements.</description>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/9</link>
                <dc:creator>Louisa Jorm</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Su Gruszin</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tim Churches</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:9</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-04-09T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-9</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1743-8462</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>9</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-04-09T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/8">
        <title>Educating the public health workforce: issues and challenges </title>
        <description>Background:
In public health, as well as other health education contexts, there is increasing recognition of the transformation in public health practice and the necessity for educational providers to keep pace. Traditionally, public health education has been at the postgraduate level; however, over the past decade an upsurge in the growth of undergraduate public health degrees has taken place.DiscussionThis article explores the impact of these changes on the traditional sphere of Master of Public Health programs, the range of competencies required at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and the relevance of these changes to the public health workforce. It raises questions about the complexity of educational issues facing tertiary institutions and discusses the implications of these issues on undergraduate and postgraduate programs in public health.
Conclusion:
The planning and provisioning of education in public health must differentiate between the requirements of undergraduate and postgraduate students &#8211; while also addressing the changing needs of the health workforce. Within Australia, although significant research has been undertaken regarding the competencies required by postgraduate public health students, the approach is still somewhat piecemeal, and does not address undergraduate public health. This paper argues for a consistent approach to competencies that describe and differentiate entry-level and advanced practice.</description>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/8</link>
                <dc:creator>Mary Louise Fleming</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Elizabeth Parker</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Trish Gould</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Melinda Service</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:8</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-04-09T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-8</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1743-8462</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>8</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-04-09T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/7">
        <title>Educating public health physicians for the future: a current perspective from Aotearoa New Zealand </title>
        <description>Persisting, and in some cases widening, inequalities in health within and between countries present significant challenges to the focus and practice of contemporary public health, and by association, to public health education. As public health physicians and academic educators of medically- and non-medically trained public health practitioners, we call for a radical re-think of current approaches to public health medicine education and training in order to address these challenges. The public health physicians of the future, we argue, require not merely technical knowledge and skills but also a set of values that underpin a commitment to ethical principles, social equity, human rights, compassionate action, advocacy and leadership. Furthermore, while they will need to have their action firmly grounded in local realities they should think, if not speak and act, from an informed awareness of global issues. Drawing from our experience in Aotearoa New Zealand, as well as with marginalised communities overseas, we proffer our suggestions for the process and content of public health physician education and training for the future, with the intention of stimulating debate.</description>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/7</link>
                <dc:creator>Chris Bullen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Pat Neuwelt</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:7</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-04-09T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-7</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1743-8462</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-04-09T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/6">
        <title>How do government health departments in Australia access health economics advice to inform decisions for health? A survey</title>
        <description>Background:
Government anticipates that health economic analysis will contribute to evidence-based policy development. Early examples in Australia where this expectation has been met include the economic evaluations of breast and cervical screening. However, the level of integration of health economics within health services that require this advice appears uneven. We sought to describe how government health departments in Australia use specialist health economic advice to inform policy and planning and the mechanisms through which they access this advice.
Methods:
Information describing the arrangements for gaining health economics input into health decision-making was sought through interviews with a purposeful sample of economists and non-economists employed by all departments of health in Australia (state, territories and national). The survey was undertaken in August 2004. To aid interpretation of the results eight health economic functions were identified. As a comparison, four other government departments in NSW provided information about their access to economic advice.
Results:
All health departments except one reported being current users of health economics expertise. A variety of arrangements were described to source this, from building organisational capacity with self-sufficient in-house units to forging links with external sources. However, specialist positions for economists or health economists employed within health were few. A framework mapping these arrangements for sourcing advice with the eight common health economic functions to be met is presented. All other non-health government departments approached accessed economic advice, with three having in-house units.DiscussionA small health economics capacity in Australia has been established over the past 30 years through a variety of structural and strategic mechanisms. Health departments value health economic advice and use a variety of arrangements to obtain this. These arrangements have strengths and weaknesses depending upon the task to be undertaken. The lack of uniformity of approach suggests that health departments are still seeking the best ways to incorporate this form of specialist advice into mainstream decision-making.ImplicationsSummarises ways that governments source specialist services. Demonstrates how to describe an organisation&apos;s need for specialist services as a set of functions. This approach could be applied to assessing need for other specialist areas of advice.</description>
        <link>http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/6/1/6</link>
                <dc:creator>Lynne Madden</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lesley King</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alan Shiell</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009, 6:6</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-04-09T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-6</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Australia and New Zealand Health Policy</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1743-8462</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>6</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-04-09T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
