There would be an "increasing discussion" about the role of the private sector in how much individuals need to be insured for their health care - especially later in life, Professor Blakely said.
Future Governments could start to push for families to take up care of their ailing relatives, he said.
"In India or Africa there's very little public funding of the health system - it's very much borne by the families, whether it be last year of life or their kid gets hit by a car and they have to deal with the orthopaedics."
The attention will at some point turn to how much tax money will go towards healthcare in the future, he said.
About two thirds of the country's $16 billion per year of public funding went towards hospitalisation, lab tests, pharmaceuticals and drugs.
Much of that cost could be reduced if people lived healthier lives, Prof Blakely said.
"If we did want to increase longevity, increase life expectancy and reduce morbidity so people are healthier at age 60 or 70, a much more cost effective way is with prevention."
This could be done in a variety of ways including working with the food industry to reduce salt in food, tax sugary soft drinks, or public campaigns about the dangers of smoking.
"Those things will be far more cost effective if societal goal is to live longer and be in better health."
Professor Blakely accepted demand on treatment services was "virtually never-ending", meaning that savings in one area such as fewer diabetes clinics, were usually quickly deployed elsewhere such as more services for Alzheimer's and dementia.
By the numbers:
* A person who dies aged 70 would have received $113,000 of publicly funded health services over their life on average (assuming 2007-2011 costs had applied over their entire life)
* A person who dies aged 90 would have received $223,000 of publicly funded health services on average
