IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cposxx/v42y2021i3p252-270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is anyone listening? Inequality in New Zealand’s fully funded hearing aid scheme

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Wallace
  • Andy Asquith
  • Shane Scahill

Abstract

This paper explores the New Zealand Ministry of Health’s (MOH) allocation of funding for the Hearing Aid Funding Scheme (HAFS) and the level of service delivery by public and private sectors. The crux of the paper centres on how the system is funded and in what ways the market structure may be affecting access to health care. The study involved three main sampling strategies with primary data being collected from the District Health Board (DHB) clinics and private providers. This was supported with secondary data of service utilization and claims, which was made available via the MOH. DHB and private provider data was collected online. This study found that the market structure and nature of the NZ hearing industry is consistent with an oligopoly – something, which has been assumed in the past but never formally acknowledged. Publicly funded DHB clinics are restricting access to adult hearing aid referrals, as well as referring rejected patients to private audiology providers for ongoing treatment. The findings were consistent with implementation of co-payment fees through DHB and private audiology providers. These findings indicate that high co-payment fees may be increasing the chance of negative externalities, due to a reduction in access and affordability.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Wallace & Andy Asquith & Shane Scahill, 2021. "Is anyone listening? Inequality in New Zealand’s fully funded hearing aid scheme," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 252-270, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:42:y:2021:i:3:p:252-270
    DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2019.1599842
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01442872.2019.1599842
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01442872.2019.1599842?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:42:y:2021:i:3:p:252-270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cpos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.