New Zealand’s government has embarked on a controversial strategy to expand private healthcare, raising questions about the potential impact on costs and quality. Under new contracts, Health New Zealand is funding private hospitals for elective surgeries, but it has withheld information regarding the payments made to these facilities. This lack of transparency complicates efforts to evaluate whether taxpayer money is being effectively utilized.
The government aims to create a health system that is both evidence-based and equitable for all New Zealanders. Despite this, it is directing Health New Zealand to establish ten-year contracts with private hospitals for essential procedures, such as cataract surgeries and joint replacements. Recently, it also designated Tend Healthcare as the first for-profit primary health organization, enabling it to contract directly with Health New Zealand.
While outsourcing services like knee replacements may appear beneficial by freeing up public hospital resources, evidence suggests that private healthcare is often less efficient and can lead to inferior care quality. Research conducted in Europe indicates that private healthcare does not necessarily improve health outcomes. Experts argue that health should not be treated as a commodity, as the dynamics of private care often do not align with public interests.
Studies from both New Zealand and other high-income nations reveal that private providers frequently prioritize profitability over patient care. This can manifest in practices such as selectively treating less complex patients, reducing surgery times, and even shifting the financial burden of complications onto the public system. For instance, some private hospitals have been known to discharge patients on Friday afternoons to avoid weekend staffing costs.
According to Dr. Kaaren Mathias, a public health doctor and researcher, the implications of private healthcare can be detrimental, particularly in lower-income countries and New Zealand. She highlights the evidence suggesting that public funding directed toward private healthcare can result in subpar care quality, fewer health workforce development opportunities, and inadequate support for those with the most significant health needs.
The financial implications of this shift are stark. In the United States, where private healthcare predominates, the average annual health expenditure per person reaches approximately NZ$25,000. In contrast, New Zealand’s public system spends about NZ$5,658 per person. Remarkably, New Zealand achieves slightly better health outcomes, with an infant mortality rate of five per 1,000 births compared to 5.4 in the U.S. Additionally, life expectancy for males in New Zealand stands at 80.1 years, outpacing the U.S. average of 78.4 years. A 2018 study underscored that instead of diverting funds to private healthcare, the focus should remain on enhancing equitable access and quality within the public system.
The argument that private care alleviates public hospital burdens is misleading. The available pool of medical professionals remains the same, meaning that when patients receive care privately, it reduces the number of patients who can be treated within the public system. Furthermore, government-funded private healthcare exacerbates inequities, often benefiting healthier patients while sidestepping those with more complex health issues. Research indicates that increased private healthcare provision correlates with higher rates of avoidable hospitalizations. In New Zealand, health inequities among Māori populations alone cost over NZ$800 million annually.
Public hospitals are generally more effective at addressing avoidable health disparities due to their commitment to treating individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and those with multiple health issues. Studies across various countries suggest that public hospitals can match or even exceed the efficiency of private facilities.
The commodification of health presents a significant challenge. Research indicates that public healthcare is more likely to yield better health outcomes, and diverting public funds to private healthcare undermines the quality of public care. In New Zealand, medical professionals frequently split their time between public and private sectors, often opting for higher pay in private facilities. This trend can lead to poorer health outcomes and decreased availability of care.
While the current government asserts its dedication to strengthening workforce development, evidence suggests that fostering a medical workforce willing to serve in rural or low-income areas necessitates training opportunities in those environments. Private healthcare often diverts cases away from these settings, further limiting opportunities for hands-on experience in public hospitals.
Maintaining good health is essential for individuals to thrive and participate fully in society. When people face health challenges or disabilities, their capacity to work and engage in life diminishes, underscoring the necessity of recognizing healthcare as a vital good and a fundamental human right, akin to education.
Despite the government’s professed commitment to equity and cost-efficiency, a wealth of evidence indicates that shifting public funding to private healthcare is likely to be both more expensive and less equitable. As health researchers like Dr. Mathias observe, the true beneficiaries of increased government investment in the private system remain uncertain—will it be patients in need or business owners seeking profit?
