The Government’s Commitment to Healthcare System Reforms
Discuss About The Stakeholder Perspectives Processes Australia.
The government of Australia renewed and demonstrated the commitment of healthcare system reforms and formed the National Preventative Healthcare Policy (Mühlbacher & Juhnke, 2013). The objectives of the policy are; to bring services to the near centre of significance healthcare. Implications for health were to deliver services to the primary healthcare centres, prevention, support organization structures, continuous development of the existing clinics and public health working environments. The policy emphasizes on accomplishing the improvement which is aligned and accountable to the preventative health measures, schedule improved health results and organizational priorities. To meet the aims of this policy there was the need for the primary health care, non-governmental organization and the existing healthcare workforce population to ameliorate on their understanding and knowledge of prevention. The improvement on these fields enables these sectors to put into practice within the organizational frameworks that are connected to the community. These requirements have to be part of national healthcare services research dockets, funds and infrastructure that supports the continuity of quality professional development (Gauld et al., 2012).
As a member state of the World Health Organization (WHO), Australia is accountable for the global set plans in reducing the burden on the fatal disease. These global life-threatening illnesses are cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes. The comprehensive plans actions of the WHO aim at substantially preventing and controlling non- communicable infections by 2025. The Australian government has a task to focus on providing sufficient attention to the health policy, program implementation and funding for effective prevention. The Australian government aimed to meet the target set in 2009 to reduce these non-communicable diseases (NDS). The economic cooperation and developmental sector reported that Australia’s cost on public health and prevention in 2011 as a portion of total recurrent health expenditure was 20% much less than in Finland at 6.1%, New Zealand at 6.4% and Canada at 5.9% (Wilson, Whitaker & Whitford, 2012).
The national preventative health policy introduced in 2008 came up with a National Health Preventative strategies (NHPS). The NHPS devoted to tobacco, alcohol, obesity and to set targets for prevention. The preventative health policy was established with a vision of providing health to the Australian society, promotion of health to all the people. Some of the problems that face the Australian people are related to chronic disease and their associated risk factors such as; harmful alcohol use, obesity and tobacco consumption (Sallis, Owen & Fisher, 2015). The government is working hard to address some of the challenges that were missed in the preventative policy. These challenges include behavioral environmental that have facilitated the significant increase in obesity over the past two decades. There are programs set up to tackle these problems. Some of these programs are rolled out in some institutions like schools, workplaces and community organizations all around the country. The program addresses the issue that results in the high prevalence of risky health behaviors and chronic infections that are common in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas (Milat, King, Bauman & Redman, 2012).
Australia’s Accountability to the Global Set Plans
The objectives of Australian health policy were numerous; it aimed at reducing the overall death rates to relatively 25% from diabetes, cancer, chronic respiratory disease and cardiovascular diseases. The policy targeted halting the rise of diabetes, reduce the prevalence of inadequate physical activities to 10%, relatively 30% reduction of the population that take sodium, ensure 80% availability of cheap essential technologies and essential medicine including generics that treats primary non-communicable infections in both private and public facilities. The targets of the policy were to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. To maximize individual’s drug therapy, the relative reduction of tobacco prevalence among the young people is necessary (Militello, Kelly & Melnyk, 2012). The general aim of the policy was to raise the critical consent to the control and prevention of non-communicable disease nationally, and internationally through engaged development goals through strong international advocacy and cooperation. The policy targeted primarily those in good health but who are at risk of getting infected and the sequence of the infection among the already affected people. The idea is to bring preventive health care from significance public health knowledge in Australia and globally.
The active stakeholder engagement is based on the best practice to deliver and design high innovative and quality policy, regulations and programs to achieve the wellbeing and best healthcare services to all Australians in current and future generations. These stakeholders include; consumers industries, health professionals, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and other peak bodies. The stakeholders are involved in ways of improving the interaction appointments, maintaining and rebuilding beneficial working relationships. Some of the structures and Australian government agencies that engage in evaluation and research activities to ensure the best health to the people includes; the Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children (LSIC), the departments of Families, Housing, Community Indigenous and Service Affairs (FAHCSIA), the Australian National Preventive Health Agency (ANPHA) that aid in supporting the research development fields with people, to build health and prevent illnesses. The Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Medical and Health Research Council (NHMRC) are fundamental towards the success of research in environmental, economic, social and public policy in schedules that are important to the promotion of better health (Lopes, Street, Carter & Merlin, 2016).
Involvement of the community decision makers, workplaces, local government and all Australians regardless of health status, age, region and physical activities of the residence is the best way of ensuring full representation of all the subjects and beneficiaries of the policy (Haby, Doherty, Welch, & Mason, 2012). The involvement of all the social groups in the community portrays equal sharing of ideas, services and making the decision that is fair to every individual in the society. To achieve the primary objective of the preventative health policy, it involves a wide range of teams searching engrossment across all sectors and disciplines. The strategy is presented to all agencies that are the concern with developing and implementing the health policy program and services.
The National Health Preventative Policy of 2008
The stakeholders involved in the development of the preventative health policy includes; the government, states and territory government, the Australian National Preventative Health Agency (ANPHA), the community service, NGOs and other public health bodies. During the strategy formation of the policy, there was some civic organization not approached. They include; agricultural, fiscal areas, industrial management and transport managements departments. The preventative health policy mainly valued the interest of Australian people. Industries, companies and manufacture’s opinions were not much focused as they were responsible for overproduction of several unhealthy products (Grant, Parry & Guerin, 2013). The products from many of the industries and factories in Australia composed of modifiable risk factors like smoking, alcoholic, blood cholesterol, sugary and junk foods. These products were complications like overweight, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and chronic diseases. The effect of many industrial products that resulted in a burden of illness in Australia cancelled out the proposals of the manufacturer’s interests during the policy discussion. These opinions reflected the competing interests of the industries, companies and manufactured with the consumers who are the public involved. High motivation was seen by the stakeholders who worked at the international level compared to the local level. The motivation was directly associated positively with the Australian burden of fatal illnesses, and it was negative towards the level of products and other risk factors related to the diseases. The positive motivation among the stakeholders was the fact that the government advocated the policy to be implemented as a national indicator of needs and resources. The stakeholder motivations for the health policy implementation is crucial in analysis and quantitative measurement for international companies (Swinburn & Wood, 2013).
The increasing rates of obesity and treatment resistance problem were some of the principal objectives that contributed to the development of this policy. Primary epidemiology and data were demonstrating the connection of characters manifesting early cases of obesity during the event and also the risk in adulthood. The data and epidemiology based on opportunity window for the development of the preventative health policy. The policy was necessary for the physical activity campaign to tackle the issue of obesity (Shill et al., 2012).
The policy addresses the Social Determinants of Health (SDH) and equality in health service delivery. The preventative health policy has strategized ways to handle the individual’s behavioral change and medical care. In 2008, the Australian commission that deals with social determinants of health, strategized the action themselves and also engaged other government organs in addressing social health issues (Baum, Laris, Fisher, Newman & MacDougall, 2013). The research from health policy determinants was published by the nine-territorial government of Australia health sector in combating the spread of complex diseases. The health policy in all jurisdictions recognized the facts on SDH and explained the goals to enhance health equity. Some of these goals were primarily used in healthcare and by other individual strategies. These few strategies were outlined in the outdoors of healthcare access, and they were limited to the scope (Richardson, 2012).
Objectives of Australian Health Policy
The king don’s Multiple Stream theory of 2011 was used to examine how policies, politics and problems combine to enhance and allow the social determinants of health equality. In the health policy of Australia, ethnicity is one of the potential barriers that confronted the health policy, especially in the minority ethnics where the care providers failed to understand the pitfalls that existed within specific ethnic groups. The potential barriers that occurred within the patient, care providers and system levels were related to the several personal characteristics; social, structure changeable, health believes, altitude, own empowering resources, demographics and perceived illnesses. The aspects of the system were related to the barriers of the system level. The review of these factors has an aim of creating awareness concerning the myriad of main obstacles to make the problem in the healthcare system transparent for different ethnic groups. The social, cultural and family ties and the main frame of the person in deciding to use the health care services. The policy was implemented to solve issues of minority ethnics that choose to address their health problems in their own culture’s, family’s or friend’s way before selecting the medical care after their social efforts fails (Badland et al., 2014).
The implementation of the health policy shown a lot of positive impacts. The enforcement of the policy has proved significant signals in the reduction of health risk behaviors like inadequate nutrition, inadequate physical activities, smoking and excessive consumption of alcohol (Fogarty, & Chapman, 2012). Clinicians have shown the interest and hard work towards implementation of the policy. They are the drivers of routine care to address the risk behaviors associated with chronic diseases (Haigh et al., 2013).
The Cochrane regular review evidence that supports the efficacy of a radius of strategies in improving the provision of the proposed services of clinical care. Such policies include; consensus and leadership, education and training, enhancement of system and the procedures, feedback and monitoring, change of the practice materials, for example, academic details and education outreach. The trial strategy implementation in the general health care services has shown increment in reduced risky health behaviors. In specific pre-post research, the invention practice changes and techniques were involved in the education staff, and the electronic tools were used for screening and templates for communication within the workforce. Another study conducted in Australia examine how the intervention practice has improved the provision of a full radius of preventive care strategies for the risk behaviors of chronic and communicable disease. The study determined the effects of the multi-strategic intervention practices that raise the preventive care elements. The implementation of the policy was based on consultation with the senior clinicians, and health districts executives. The tool used was incorporated to the electronic medical recording machine that is used by clinicians to enhance standardization in assessment, proper recording of risky status and provision of subsequent preventive care (Harris-Roxas et al., 2012).
Stakeholder Engagement and Involvement
There are several reforms that the government has devised to enhance useful models of accountability and funding the healthcare system (Hegney, Patterson, Eley, Mahomed, & Young, 2013). The changes in the community governance and stewardship of government were accompanied to these reforms. The policy had to partner with providers and funders in the two Australian territories which sought to implement the changes to observe them while generating and developing the evidence on facts and reasons. The purpose of the reforms made by the government in collaboration with the public healthcare was to ensure; streamlined accountability measures, improvement of funding methods and fulfilling the stewardship responsibilities for sustainability and strengthening of the healthcare system. The contracting model that has been used in Australian healthcare has been proven effective in some other countries. The contracting strategy of funding the healthcare shown potential results in New Zealand, Canada and many other developing countries.
The prevention health policy provides evident advice to the government and health services providers in both private and public centers. The health preventative program strategies support the National Health policy developments. The task force provides support and guidance for particular primary care. The policy offers several strategies for the prevention targeting high-risk minor populations like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and the rural communities. The task force gives free advice to the policymakers on strategies that may work best at the buyers or population level for the government investment, especially on primary prevention. The health policy requires external experts like nursing experts from midwifery and senior nursing officer. Consumer inputs provided by the stakeholder’s group and experts within the health portfolio such as town planning and transport. (Batterham, Buchbinder, Beauchamp, Dodson, Elsworth & Osborne, 2014).
Conclusion
The state and territory government took the primary task of ensuring the implementation of the policy through education to the public and motivation in the healthcare centres. There are sufficient support and evidence that shows how the efficiency has been enhanced through implementation of this policy. Enforcement of the preventative health taskforce reflected a significance improvement in the Australian healthcare system. Motivation and education have enabled more comfortable access to quality health policies to all Australians. The government of Australia advocated wholeheartedly in ensuring the efficiency of the key institutions, agencies and workforce ability building in the healthcare field. The Australian government provided standardization in the potential competing interest and different powers involved in the health policy implementation.
Social Determinants of Health and Equality
References
Badland, H., Whitzman, C., Lowe, M., Davern, M., Aye, L., Butterworth, I., … & Giles-Corti, B. (2014). Urban liveability: emerging lessons from Australia for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health. Social science & medicine, 111, 64-73.
Baum, F. E., Laris, P., Fisher, M., Newman, L., & MacDougall, C. (2013). “Never mind the logic, give me the numbers”: Former Australian health ministers’ perspectives on the social determinants of health. Social Science & Medicine, 87, 138-146.
Batterham, R. W., Buchbinder, R., Beauchamp, A., Dodson, S., Elsworth, G. R., & Osborne, R. H. (2014). The OPtimising HEalth LIterAcy (Ophelia) process: study protocol for using health literacy profiling and community engagement to create and implement healthcare reform. BMC public health, 14(1), 694.
Fogarty, A. S., & Chapman, S. (2012). Australian television news coverage of alcohol, health and related policies, 2005 to 2010: implications for alcohol policy advocates. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 36(6), 530-536.
Gauld, R., Blank, R., Burgers, J., Cohen, A. B., Dobrow, M., Ikegami, N., … & Wendt, C. (2012). The World health report 2008–primary healthcare: how wide is the gap between its agenda and implementation in 12 high-income health systems?. Healthcare Policy, 7(3), 38.
Grant, J., Parry, Y., & Guerin, P. (2013). An investigation of culturally competent terminology in healthcare policy finds ambiguity and lack of definition. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 37(3), 250-256.
Haby, M. M., Doherty, R., Welch, N., & Mason, V. (2012). Community-based interventions for obesity prevention: lessons learned by Australian policy-makers. BMC research notes, 5(1), 20.
Haigh, F., Baum, F., Dannenberg, A. L., Harris, M. F., Harris-Roxas, B., Keleher, H., … & Harris, E. (2013). The effectiveness of health impact assessment in influencing decision-making in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009. BMC public health, 13(1), 1188.
Hegney, D. G., Patterson, E., Eley, D. S., Mahomed, R., & Young, J. (2013). The feasibility, acceptability and sustainability of nurse?led chronic disease management in Australian general practice: The perspectives of key stakeholders. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 19(1), 54-59.
Harris-Roxas, B., Viliani, F., Bond, A., Cave, B., Divall, M., Furu, P., … & Winkler, M. (2012). Health impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 30(1), 43-52.
Lopes, E., Street, J., Carter, D., & Merlin, T. (2016). Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Health Expectations, 19(2), 331-344.
Milat, A. J., King, L., Bauman, A. E., & Redman, S. (2012). The concept of scalability: increasing the scale and potential adoption of health promotion interventions into policy and practice. Health promotion international, 28(3), 285-298.
Militello, L. K., Kelly, S. A., & Melnyk, B. M. (2012). Systematic review of text?messaging interventions to promote healthy behaviors in pediatric and adolescent populations: implications for clinical practice and research. Worldviews on Evidence?Based Nursing, 9(2), 66-77.
Mühlbacher, A. C., & Juhnke, C. (2013). Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making?. Applied health economics and health policy, 11(3), 163-180.
Richardson, A. K. (2012). Investing in public health: barriers and possible solutions. Journal of Public Health, 34(3), 322-327.
Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. (2015). Ecological models of health behavior. Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice, 5, 43-64.
Shill, J., Mavoa, H., Allender, S., Lawrence, M., Sacks, G., Peeters, A., … & Swinburn, B. (2012). Government regulation to promote healthy food environments–a view from inside state governments. Obesity reviews, 13(2), 162-173.
Swinburn, B., & Wood, A. (2013). Progress on obesity prevention over 20 years in Australia and New Zealand. Obesity Reviews, 14(S2), 60-68.
Wilson, A., Whitaker, N., & Whitford, D. (2012). Rising to the challenge of health care reform with entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial nursing initiatives. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 17(2).
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
