Nats: Govts must set new health targets
National wants to make National Health Targets a legal requirement with a new bill, but governments would be allowed to decide what targets to set.
It uses almost exactly the same wording as the Government’s own child poverty legislation, which contains the same requirement.
It comes after Stuff revealed the Ministry of Health had quietly stopped publishing data from six National Health Targets, under a directive from Health Minister David Clark.
He cited ‘‘perverse incentives’’ among the reasons he did not want the data on district health boards’ performances to be published publicly, although he confirmed the data was still being collected. The Government was working on developing new targets.
National health spokesman Michael Woodhouse said the bill was in defence of targets set by the Helen Clark-led government and they were an important measure to ensure the improving health of New Zealanders.
The bill was inspired by the Government’s own child poverty legislation, that required targets be set, but the government of the day could decide their focus.
Under National’s bill, no fewer than six and no more than 12 targets would be have to be set. Those targets would have to be reviewed every five years at a minimum, and the results reported publicly on a regular basis.
Data from current National Health Targets was still being collected. However, while the results used to be released on a quarterly basis both on the Ministry of Health website and in relevant newspapers within DHB areas, they had not been published since September last year.
The full-page spreads, entitled How’s your DHB doing?, became regular features that laid out their results across measures like throughput in surgeries, cancer treatment, emergency department waiting times and childhood immunisations, as well as B4 School checks and help for smokers to quit. ‘‘Tremendous gains were achieved when they were set and performance against them was published,’’ said Woodhouse. Among some of the negative impacts of the targets cited by Clark were the introduction of skin lesion removals and avastin eye injections into elective surgery counting, which he said had come at the expense of more complicated surgeries.
Clark has confirmed the targets were still being monitored, but the data would no longer be proactively released. Officials were working on alternative measurements.
Official information requests from Stuff, regarding the decision to stop reporting National Health Targets, have been declined by Clark’s office because the information was under ‘‘active consideration’’.
That was likely to protect officials’ advice and information while decisions were yet to be made around the establishment of new health measures.