Reporting on health targets stops but process continues

A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.

Health Minister David Clark has dropped the national publication of health board targets, such as for elective surgeries, cancer treatment times and emergency department waiting times — although Gisborne health board Hauora Tairawhiti and the other 19 boards will still report internally on them.

Mr Clark said the targets were creating “perverse outcomes”.

Hauora Tairawhiti chief executive Jim Green said the health targets remained, “but as happened with them since they were first implemented under the previous Labour-led government, they are under another review”.

Public reporting of the health targets was no longer occurring — “that is, the publishing of the target results in national newspapers”.

“We are continuing to report monthly.

“From what I have seen of the publishing of Tairawhiti data, I have always questioned the value of it because it is not yet up to a consistent quality level that would allow for any conclusions from it.”

Mr Green said the national patient flow (NPF) project was continuing.

The project provided information from health boards on patients referred for specialist services, the outcome of referrals and the time it took for patients to access care — from primary care to tertiary care (hospitals).

Mr Clark wrote to Hauora Tairawhiti last month and said the NPF would “quantify unmet referred demand for services”.

Mr Green said there was continual work to upgrade the accuracy of the NPF data and to expand its usefulness.

Mr Clark said the health targets had little effect and were “derided” by many clinicians.

Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters said health targets had been a miserable failure.

Leader of the Opposition Simon Bridges said dropping the targets would result in losing accountability, more illness and more deaths.

Ian Powell, executive director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, said health targets had led to superficial assessments, ‘‘grossly misled the public” and led to perverse outcomes “in the context of underfunding’’.