Here is a reform example drawn from a previous Productivity Commission report. While the Commission will not be duplicating previous analysis of reforms, it provides an illustrative example.
Please provide a short description of your reform idea
Introduce 'Do not do' lists for clinical procedures in hospitals that are not supported by sound evidence.
Which level of government does this reform relate to?
State or territory government.
What is the objective of this reform?
Improve health outcomes for Australians, while diverting resources from activities with low benefits.
Why is this reform worth pursuing?
Reduce the incidence of adverse events and the need for subsequent interventions.
What is the evidence to support the reform?
Experience in the United Kingdom and evidence from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Who would the reform most benefit?
Australians using hospital services, and to the extent that it lowered future health costs, Australian taxpayers.
re there likely to be any losers from this reform, and who are they?
Not clear anyone would be adversely affected. Taxpayers would need to fund the analysis of appropriate 'do not do' lists, but the costs would be less than the benefits, and the costs would be reduced by drawing on the evidence already accumulated by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Over what timeframe do you believe this reform could be implemented?
Within 3 years.
What implementation costs do you think this reform might involve?
Would require discussions between clinicians, their representative bodies, regulators and state governments, with the resources that this requires. Costs would be modest.
Are there any obstacles or impediments that may prevent this reform from being implemented