Oliver Frank wrote: > > caused mainly by the even larger geography than New Zealand's, our > ridiculous State/Federal disjunctions and jurisdictional fights or by > something in the Australian character. Whatever the cause, I have often > admired New Zealand's ability to just get on and implement changes in > its health system (acknowledging that some of them have turned out to be > experiments that failed). > Nehta was always a temporary organisation, born of frustration (that everybody feels) about the lack of progress. The major problem has always been the multiple jurisdictions, and a feature of the birth of Nehta was that it was owned and funded by all the jurisdictions together. The idea is that if you fund something which is supposed to set standards and infrastructure issues, then you might feel under some pressure to use the results ...
Therefore in the absence of a National prescriptive approach (apparently not possible in Australia ...), it was hoped that all the jurisdictions buying shares in the company would help the herd to move in the right direction. This all relies on progress by Nehta in producing some of the building blocks that everyone needs. There certainly is slow progress, but will it be in time to be used ?? Nehta itself has no way in which it can impose these standards itself. In our strange federated system it seems that only the jurisdictions can make those decisions. Sigh ... Michael Tooth GP Hobart _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
