Abstract
BackgroundUnlike pharmaceuticals and private medical services there is no single source of funding for illness prevention and health promotion and no systematic process for setting priorities in public health. There is a need to improve the efficiency of access to health funding across prevention and treatment.DiscussionWe discuss a number of reforms to existing funding arrangements including the creation of a national Preventative Priorities Advisory Committee (PrePAC) to set priorities. We propose the establishment of a PrePAC to provide evidence and set priorities across health promotion and illness prevention, with a national dedicated fund for health promotion.ConclusionA national evidence-based funding system for illness prevention and health promotion would legitimise a substantial and sustained budget for health promotion, breaking down some of the barriers in a fragmented federal health care system.
Highlights
Unlike pharmaceuticals and private medical services there is no single source of funding for illness prevention and health promotion and no systematic process for setting priorities in public health
Australia has led the world in introducing formal evidence-based evaluation processes for medical services and technologies to establish value for money, but, as a consequence of fragmented responsibility and funding, health promotion and illness prevention have been left out
In this paper we suggest the creation of a national Preventative Priorities Advisory Committee (PrePAC) to reduce the gap in the likelihood of obtaining public funding among cost effective interventions
Summary
Unlike pharmaceuticals and private medical services there is no single source of funding for illness prevention and health promotion and no systematic process for setting priorities in public health. Funding for illness prevention and health promotion in Australia is fragmented. Australia has led the world in introducing formal evidence-based evaluation processes for medical services and technologies to establish value for money, but, as a consequence of fragmented responsibility and funding, health promotion and illness prevention have been left out. While pharmaceuticals and (out of hospital and private hospital) medical services in Australia have access to dedicated budgets and are subject to formal and well-defined evaluation processes, most prevention and health promotion interventions compete for disparate and uncertain sources of funding that lack consistent and rational criteria for allocation. In this paper we suggest the creation of a national Preventative Priorities Advisory Committee (PrePAC) to reduce the gap in the likelihood of obtaining public funding among cost effective interventions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
