The Australian and New Zealand Primary Healthcare Compared

Running head: THE AUATRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND PRIMARY HEALTHCARE
COMPARED 1
The Australian and New Zealand Primary Healthcare Compared
Name
Institution
Course
Date

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND PRIMARY HEALTHCARE COMPARED 2
Introduction
The underpinning principle for the Australian healthcare services framework is equity to
widespread accessibility of most healthcare provisions without the attention to the circumstance
or capacity to pay. This is feasible because the income for this social insurance originates from
tax collection. The healthcare services are supported through Medicare and pharmaceuticals
plans which are profoundly sponsored by the government. Further, the public facilities, as well
as the public healthcare services, are halfway subsidized by federation and state financing
understandings. The plans are established on the idea of making public health available to every
native independent of their budgetary capacity hence the primary health care strategy.
The main objective of primary health care is to increase universal access to health care as
well as empowering the general population to manage their health. Australia has one of the best
healthcare systems in the world, ranking second among the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) countries (Schneider, 2017). The Australian healthcare
sector is implementing various strategies that enhance access to health care and reduce the health
inequalities that exist among its customers. Through the formation of a long-lasting relationship
between the general practitioners (GP) and the clients, promotion of multidisciplinary healthcare
workers and the utilization of better economically possible funding for the sector, the successful
advancement of primary health care is to be achieved by the government for its people (Duckett
& Willcox, 2015). New Zealand adopts a similar strategy for primary health care that aims at
tackling the inequalities in health for the New Zealanders (Mays, 2013). In this article, the New
Zealand key strategy for primary health care will be evaluated and a discussion on determinants
of primary care health. Also, this key strategy will be compared and contrasted with the
Australian approach to primary health care.

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND PRIMARY HEALTHCARE COMPARED 3
New Zealand strategy for primary health care
The New Zealand primary healthcare strategy was launched in 2001 based on the Alma-
Ata declaration principles (Neuwelt & Matheson, 2012). The government seeks to reduce the
accessibility inequalities to primary care among particular population groups in conjunction with
the health outcome indications as a result of the disparities to provide primary health care for all
the New Zealanders (Gauld, 2012).
The strategy incorporates the general population in the local primary health care services
and ensures that these services improve the health status of the people rather than individuals
(Neuwelt & Matheson, 2012). In this regard, the healthcare providers participate in communities
and work with them to improve the community’s health through enhancing the preventive
measures for example by health education and counseling. It is worth noting that this strategy for
promoting the population primary care necessitates the participation of a range of professionals.
The primary care strategy, therefore, entailed grouping of primary care providers, nurses and
other professionals, for example, the Maori health providers into what is called Primary Health
Organizations (PHOs). These PHOs are subsidized on a capitation basis for giving a predefined
set of treatment and preventive administrations to their enlisted population with or without
making contact throughout the period (Salmond & Crampton, 2012). Also, the primary care
strategy augments the already achieved efforts for equity and universal accessibility to health
care services with new mechanisms that will promote the overall wellbeing of the society. These
mechanisms included the development of a relationship of the service providers with the
communities and the district health board, training and dissemination of best practices,
developing and funding of the primary care programs.

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND PRIMARY HEALTHCARE COMPARED 4
Determinants of health
Social determinants
Primary health care (PHC) and the social factors influencing health share a solid spotlight
on inter-sectoral activity for wellbeing. The PHC acknowledges that the healthcare department
isn't the sole factor for enhancing welfare. The consideration of social determinants demonstrates
how most wellbeing disparities are not caused by an absence of access to healthcare provisions,
yet by the impact of imbalances in different sectors, for example, housing, occupation, education
or revenue. Also, both the PHC and the social determinants perceive that the structuring of
healthcare frameworks impacts on health equity. Therefore, these factors require a system that
enhances universal coverage of the services to promote PHC (Browne et al., 2012).
Income is directly related to health for the low earning people experience poor health as
opposed to the high or middle-income persons. Further, income dictates the quality of life of an
individual, for example, people with less income experience inadequate housing, poor diet,
illiteracy, and limited capacity to access or pay for healthcare services. These factors contribute
to the generally poor health of the low earning groups of people. For example, the Maori have
typically high levels of poverty as opposed to the non-Maori, although measures are
implemented to reduce the gap (Marriot & Sim, 2015).
Consequently, low income earning people will experience low literacy levels for they
have a lesser capacity to cater for their education, unlike the rich people. Illiteracy thwarts the
implementation of PHC strategies and incapacitates these group on individuals from managing
their health due to inadequate knowledge. Without quality education, an individual will not make
sound decisions regarding their health. Insufficient understanding of the available health care