Executive Summary
Health policy is particularly unique and unlike public policy in other areas, has some characteristics that set it out as a special kind of policy. Perhaps this is the reason why it attracts substantial political attention. The interest groups of health policy – the patients, the professionals, the government, the policy makers, the government and the non-governmental bodies – are keener on the changes in such policy than are stakeholders of other forms of social policy. This report focuses on health policy, with special attention to the ideas fronted by Dutton (2013), for his coalition regarding the Medicare locals. The policy is analyzed using the guidelines explained by Palmer and Short (2010). The analysis takes into consideration the political, economic and social aspects of the same. The report focuses on the various interest groups, with a keen focus on the losers and the potential winners from the policy implementation. The strengths and weaknesses of the policy are as well weighed in the last part of the report, followed by up-to-date recommendations.
The Policy Statement on Medicare Locals
Introduction
The policy statement issued by the Member of Parliament Dutton focuses on Medicare Locals, and emphasizes the fact that the status quo considers administration more than service delivery. According to Dutton (2013) therefore, the policy has to be modified in such a manner that service delivery is prioritized, and bureaucracies eliminated because the presence of such red tape administration is the reason why the patients are not received the best, and the clinicians are feeling left out. The primary aim of the policy change, therefore, will be to eliminate the weaknesses rooted in the administration with the objective of benefitting the patients and empowering the clinicians. In light of this, the primary winners of the policy will be the two most important stakeholders of health policy – the patients and the clinicians. On the contrary, the main losers will be the administrators concerned with the management of Medicare Locals and the government wing that advocates for the status quo. All things considered, there will be far reaching economic, social and political effects of such change.
Palmer and short (2010) outline a number four types of policy – distributive, regulatory, self-regulatory and redistributive. The policy under focus for the purposes of this report is a redistributive policy as it seeks to channel the resources to what the proposers consider better use. According to Nagel (2002), all policies have supporters and opposing parties, especially from the political arena. In the case of the Medicare Locals policy statement, Dutton and his coalition are opposing the redistributive changes. On the contrary, Well (2013) and his side of the political scene are in support of the status quo. By directing major resources to the patients and the clinicians, the policy changes will bring a practical overhaul such that the face of Medicare Changes significantly. The main concerns of the proposed changes revolve around the manner in which the Medicare Locals scheme interacts with the local hospitals and the style in which it cooperates with the delivery of services at the grassroots level.
The main interest groups in this policy are the local hospitals, the suppliers of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, the committees in charge of the tendering process, the nongovernmental organizations concerned with health, as well as the insurance companies offering medical cover (Knapp, 2007). The commonwealth is a primary stakeholder as it is concerned with funding of the Medicare Locals across the country (Dutton, 2013). For effective analysis, the report will consider the following perspectives
Political Perspectives
Looking at the policy from a political point of view, it is clear that it is a battle of the status quo versus transformational ideas. Typically, the government side of the political divide supports the status quo while the opposition side challenges the status quo (Barraclough & Gardner, 2008). For example, Dutton (2013) and his coalition challenge the status quo because they consider themselves the watchdogs, who are entrusted with the moral duty of keeping the checks and balances on the government’s action. If the changes advocated for by Dutton get implemented, the coalition supported by Well (2013) will be the ultimate loser in terms of ideology. Along with these political leaders, the people in charge of managing the current Medicare Locals will be losers. On the contrary, the coalition to which Dutton belongs will have triumphed and, together with the patients and the clinicians, they will be the winners. Through a comprehensive review of the tendering process, any corrupt and irregular deals will be done away with, paving way for objectivity.
Economic Perspectives
Vedung (2008) argues that during policy change, economic changes are inevitable. The financial changes get altered and affect various stakeholders differently. In this case, the management overhaul and elimination of the red tape tendering processes and bureaucratic ways of doing things will channel more funds to the clinicians, enabling them the offer better services and quality care to the patients. Gardner and Barraclough (2002) argue that in such arrangements, the amounts of money that the patients spend on healthcare are significantly reduced. As such, from the economical viewpoint, monetary resources are put into better use (Liu, 2003). From an ethical viewpoint, the monetary resources are better serving the clinicians and the patients than resting in the hands of the management which is characterized by bureaucratic administration.
Social Perspectives
Many policy authors (Money and Scotton (2008), Jurkowski (2007) and Gauld (2005)) argue that health policy such as the one on Medicare Locals is quite complicated because health professionals have no counterparts in the education systems. Further, Birkland (2001) explains that health policies are the most difficult to change, especially considering that they are rooted in the sanctity of life. The policy statement by Dutton comes with many social changes. Foremost, it improves the service delivery through improving efficiency of the professionals. Secondly, the policy changes eliminate duplication of function, and work hand in hand with the local hospitals in taking advanced care to the grass roots. Dutton’s statement will, upon implementation empower the patients who, according to Fischer (2007), cannot differentiate between good and poor health services.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Policy
The most notable strength of this policy is the reality that it empowers the most important stakeholder of the health care system – the patient – and supports the stakeholders in change of dispensing the essence of medical care – the clinicians (Busch and Braun, 2000). By stripping the bureaucratic management of the resources and financial strength and bringing the same to the people that need it most, efficiency is boosted and ethical justification is established through the belief serving the majority is the essence of ethics. Another primary strength is the reality that it is economically and socially justifiable, considering that it puts the otherwise limited resources to better use, and eliminates barriers to timely access of health services.
Perhaps the main weakness is the actuality that implementation may attract a lot of resistance, especially now that it touches on the management and administration of the system. Resistance to change is a common barrier to the implementation of policy in any field (Nagel, 2002). Another weakness of the policy is that it may take exceedingly long to implement. For example, changing a system with bureaucratic leadership to observe transformational concepts is the most difficult affair as far as policy implementation is concerned.
Recommendations
With regard to Dutton’s policy statement, the following recommendations are imperative:
- The policy makers should consider the possibility of duplication of function before designing key changes (Knapp, 2007). For instance, the Medicare Locals and the local hospitals could be serving the same function, resulting in absurdity.
- Bureaucracies should be eliminated at all costs as they slow down service delivery and harbor corrupt tendencies (Vedung, 2008). For instance the lengthy procurement procedures associated with pharmaceuticals and medical equipment can delay the administration of care in urgent cases.
- Policy changes should seek to remedy the faults of the status quo without necessarily politicizing matters. For instance the arguments of Well (2013) are mere justifications of the status quo.
- The most important stakeholder should be educated on their rights and freedoms with regards to policy, and how to differentiate high quality from bad quality in terms of service (Palmer and Short, 2010). For instance, the policy changes should embrace the enlightenment of the patients on their rights to timely access of quality care.
- Policies should be designed to serve the best interest of the majority. For instance, power and resources should be taken away from the bureaucratic incompetent management and brought down to the patients and clinicians.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear that, from the foregoing, health policy is among the most comprehensive and involving as far as changing and implementation are concerned. Dutton’s policy statement is economically and socially viable, but receives political criticism from the likes of Well (2013). The policy as explained by Dutton will benefit the patients and the clinicians and oust bureaucratic leadership which is characterized by incompetent leaders and ineffective procedures. The strengths of the policy are rooted in the socio-economic justification, while the weaknesses relate to political matters and costs – both financial and implied – in the implementation process. The recommendations made above can be used to eliminate the faults in policy making process, especially in the health related matters.
References
Barraclough, S., & Gardner, H. (2008). Analysing health policy: A problem-oriented approach. Sydney: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.
Birkland, T. A. (2001). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.
Busch, A., & Braun, D. (2000). Public policy and political ideas. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.
Carrin, G. (2009). Health systems policy, finance, and organization. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Dutton, P. Coalition to review Medicare Locals. Press Release retrieved 18/9/2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.peterdutton.com.au/Home/LatestNews/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/388/Coalition-to-review-Medicare-Locals.asp
Fischer, F. (2007). Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods. Boca Raton [u.a.: CRC Press.
Gardner, H., & Barraclough, S. (2002). Health policy in Australia. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.
Gauld, R. (2005). Comparative health policy in the Asia-Pacific. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
http://ahha.asn.au/news/walk-away-medicare-locals-walk-away-local-primary-health-care
Jurkowski, E. T. (2007). Policy and program planning for older adults: Realities and visions : instructor's manual. New York: Springer Pub.
Knapp, M. (2007). Mental health policy and practice across Europe: The future direction of mental health care. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Liu, X. (2003). Policy tools for allocative efficiency of health services. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Mooney, G. H., & Scotton, R. B. (2008). Economics and Australian health policy. St Leonards, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin.
Nagel, S. S. (2002). Handbook of public policy evaluation. Thousand Oaks, Calif. ;London: Sage.
Palmer, G. R., & Short, S. D. (2010). Health care & public policy: An Australian analysis. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.
Vedung, E. (2008). Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Wells, L. To walk away from Medicare Locals is to walk away from local primary health care. Retrieved 18/9/2013 from the World Wide Web:
