我们如何资助澳大利亚的公共卫生事业?我们应该如何做?

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100187
Alan Shiell , Kate Garvey , Shane Kavanagh , Victoria Loblay , Penelope Hawe
{"title":"我们如何资助澳大利亚的公共卫生事业?我们应该如何做?","authors":"Alan Shiell ,&nbsp;Kate Garvey ,&nbsp;Shane Kavanagh ,&nbsp;Victoria Loblay ,&nbsp;Penelope Hawe","doi":"10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To map how public health is funded in Australia. To assess whether changes to funding methods might improve system performance.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Review of publicly accessible documents and discussions with public health key informants.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Australia spent $140 per person on public health in 2019-20, (1.8% of total health spending). But there is considerable state and territory variation. This money flows through multiple channels and payment mechanisms. Responsibility for what is funded is largely delegated to authorities close to the problems. This makes it easier to choose the best mechanism for funding an activity. Much information is hidden from view, however. This makes it impossible to assess whether the potential for population benefit is fully realised.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Australia avoids some of the difficulties experienced elsewhere because funding is largely devolved to states in block grants; they shape their own investments. The US, by contrast, prefers categorical funds for specific purposes. Three suggestions for making the funding system here more visible, useful and accountable are canvassed, including ‘satellite accounts’.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for Public Health</h3><div>Funding needs to be more transparent before it is possible to assess whether public health system performance could be improved through changes to the way public health is funded.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8620,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health","volume":"48 5","pages":"Article 100187"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do we fund Public Health in Australia? How should we?\",\"authors\":\"Alan Shiell ,&nbsp;Kate Garvey ,&nbsp;Shane Kavanagh ,&nbsp;Victoria Loblay ,&nbsp;Penelope Hawe\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To map how public health is funded in Australia. To assess whether changes to funding methods might improve system performance.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Review of publicly accessible documents and discussions with public health key informants.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Australia spent $140 per person on public health in 2019-20, (1.8% of total health spending). But there is considerable state and territory variation. This money flows through multiple channels and payment mechanisms. Responsibility for what is funded is largely delegated to authorities close to the problems. This makes it easier to choose the best mechanism for funding an activity. Much information is hidden from view, however. This makes it impossible to assess whether the potential for population benefit is fully realised.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Australia avoids some of the difficulties experienced elsewhere because funding is largely devolved to states in block grants; they shape their own investments. The US, by contrast, prefers categorical funds for specific purposes. Three suggestions for making the funding system here more visible, useful and accountable are canvassed, including ‘satellite accounts’.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for Public Health</h3><div>Funding needs to be more transparent before it is possible to assess whether public health system performance could be improved through changes to the way public health is funded.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health\",\"volume\":\"48 5\",\"pages\":\"Article 100187\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020024000633\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020024000633","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:绘制澳大利亚公共卫生资金来源图。评估改变资助方式是否能改善系统绩效:方法:查阅可公开获取的文件,并与公共卫生主要信息提供者进行讨论:2019-20 年,澳大利亚在公共卫生方面的人均支出为 140 澳元(占卫生总支出的 1.8%)。但各州和地区之间存在很大差异。这些资金通过多种渠道和支付机制流动。资金的使用主要由与问题密切相关的部门负责。这样就更容易选择资助某项活动的最佳机制。然而,许多信息是不为人知的。结论:澳大利亚避免了其他国家遇到的一些困难:结论:澳大利亚避免了其他国家遇到的一些困难,因为资金主要以整笔拨款的形式下放到各州;各州自行决定自己的投资。相比之下,美国更倾向于为特定用途提供分类资金。本文提出了三项建议,包括 "卫星账户",以使澳大利亚的资助体系更加可见、有用和负责:对公共卫生的影响:在评估是否可以通过改变公共卫生的供资方式来提高公共卫生系统的绩效之前,需要提高供资的透明度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How do we fund Public Health in Australia? How should we?

Objective

To map how public health is funded in Australia. To assess whether changes to funding methods might improve system performance.

Methods

Review of publicly accessible documents and discussions with public health key informants.

Results

Australia spent $140 per person on public health in 2019-20, (1.8% of total health spending). But there is considerable state and territory variation. This money flows through multiple channels and payment mechanisms. Responsibility for what is funded is largely delegated to authorities close to the problems. This makes it easier to choose the best mechanism for funding an activity. Much information is hidden from view, however. This makes it impossible to assess whether the potential for population benefit is fully realised.

Conclusions

Australia avoids some of the difficulties experienced elsewhere because funding is largely devolved to states in block grants; they shape their own investments. The US, by contrast, prefers categorical funds for specific purposes. Three suggestions for making the funding system here more visible, useful and accountable are canvassed, including ‘satellite accounts’.

Implications for Public Health

Funding needs to be more transparent before it is possible to assess whether public health system performance could be improved through changes to the way public health is funded.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
121
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (ANZJPH) is concerned with public health issues. The research reported includes formal epidemiological inquiries into the correlates and causes of diseases and health-related behaviour, analyses of public policy affecting health and disease, and detailed studies of the cultures and social structures within which health and illness exist. The Journal is multidisciplinary and aims to publish methodologically sound research from any of the academic disciplines that constitute public health.
期刊最新文献
Taking a strengths-based approach to mental health in rural communities: A systematic literature review Preliminary evaluation of a novel Aboriginal community–controlled prison health service for First Nations people A cross-sectional study of the experiences of distressed callers when accessing financial assistance from a telephone-based cancer information and support service Increasing awareness of sexually transmitted infections (STI) testing and addressing stigma may improve STI testing in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth: Evidence from the Next Generation Youth Wellbeing Study Psychedelic medicine and cultural responsiveness: A call for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement in Australian clinical trials and practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1