Australian health policy and end of life care for people with chronic disease: An analysis

End of life care for people with advanced chronic disease is a growing international imperative, with the majority of deaths in the world now related to chronic disease. The provision of care that meets the needs of people with advanced chronic disease must be guided by appropriate policy. The key policy areas impacting directly on end of life care are related to chronic disease, palliative care and, increasingly, aged care. This paper describes the outcomes of an audit of Australian chronic disease and end of life/palliative care policies. We identified that chronic disease health policies/strategies demonstrate a focus on prevention, early intervention and management, with scant recognition of end of life care needs. The majority assume that a referral to palliative care will address end of life care needs for people with chronic disease. By contrast, palliative care policies recognise the need for the incorporation of a palliative approach into advanced chronic disease care, but there are few connections between these two policy areas. Whilst palliative care policies intersect with carer and advance care planning policies, chronic disease policy does not. Key concerns requiring consideration when developing policy in this area are discussed and possible policy options identified.Teresa Burgess, Annette Braunack-Mayer, Gregory B. Crawford, Justin Beilb

Financing intersectoral action for health: a systematic review of co-financing models.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the social and other non-biological determinants of health largely depends on policies and programmes implemented outside the health sector. While there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that tackle these upstream determinants, the health sector does not typically prioritise them. From a health perspective, they may not be cost-effective because their non-health outcomes tend to be ignored. Non-health sectors may, in turn, undervalue interventions with important co-benefits for population health, given their focus on their own sectoral objectives. The societal value of win-win interventions with impacts on multiple development goals may, therefore, be under-valued and under-resourced, as a result of siloed resource allocation mechanisms. Pooling budgets across sectors could ensure the total multi-sectoral value of these interventions is captured, and sectors' shared goals are achieved more efficiently. Under such a co-financing approach, the cost of interventions with multi-sectoral outcomes would be shared by benefiting sectors, stimulating mutually beneficial cross-sectoral investments. Leveraging funding in other sectors could off-set flat-lining global development assistance for health and optimise public spending. Although there have been experiments with such cross-sectoral co-financing in several settings, there has been limited analysis to examine these models, their performance and their institutional feasibility. AIM: This study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded. RESULTS: Of 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes. CONCLUSION: Co-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals

Service providers' perceptions of active ageing among older adults with lifelong intellectual disabilities

Background: Considerable attention is currently being directed towards both active ageing and the revising of standards for disability services within Australia and internationally. Yet, to date, no consideration appears to have been given to ways to promote active ageing among older adults with intellectual disabilities. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 Australian professional direct-care support staff (service providers) about their perceptions of ageing among older adults with lifelong intellectual disabilities and what active ageing might entail for an individual from this population who is currently under their care, in both the present and future. Data were analysed against the six core World Health Organization active ageing outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities. Results: Service providers appeared to be strongly focused on encouraging active ageing among their clients. However, their perceptions of the individual characteristics, circumstances and experiences of older adults with intellectual disabilities for whom they care suggest that active ageing principles need to be applied to this group in a way that considers both their individual and diverse needs, particularly with respect to them transitioning from day services, employment or voluntary work to reduced activity, and finally to aged care facilities. The appropriateness of this group being placed in nursing homes in old age was also questioned. Conclusion: Direct-care staff of older adults with intellectual disabilities have a vital role to play in encouraging and facilitating active ageing, as well as informing strategies that need to be implemented to ensure appropriate care for this diverse group as they proceed to old age