Two options dismissed

Press, 5 December 1986, Page 3

Two options dismissed

Two options outlined in the “Choices for Health Care” report made public yesterday are unacceptable to the New Zealand health system, according to the president of the national Hospital Boards’ Association, Mr Tom Grigg. He said the second option, which reduced the role of the Government to a “health insurer” providing a safety net for high-risk and low-income groups, and perhaps imposing compulsory health insurance for others, did not deserve a lot of attention. “It is in line with the American system and it is generally acknowledged that New Zealand’s present system is superior to this,” said Mr Grigg. “You tend to get a twotier situation of those with insurance and those without, and I don’t think this is acceptable in New Zealand.”

Option five, which has the State assume a nearmonopoly by employing doctors and other prim-ary-care workers on salaries, as well as pro-

viding secondary services such as hospitals, was unrealistic in economic terms. “Sweden and other Scandinavian countries operate under this system and spend up to 12 per cent of their gross domestic product on health. We spend only 5.6 per cent,” Mr Grigg said. These percentages were taken from the 1984 figures issued by the O.E.C.D. Compared with New Zealand’s 5.6 per cent, Australia spends 7.7 per cent of G.D.P. on health, Canada 8.4 per cent, and the United States 10.7 per cent. Mr Grigg said the other three proposals should be discussed fully by all sectors of the community. “There is a lot of good being done in New Zealand on improving its health care services within the limited budget we have, and it is important that this type of assessment is done so that we can get the best value for the dollar spent and provide the most efficient service.”