IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Use of Targets to Improve Health System Performance: English NHS Experience and Implications for New Zealand




The setting of quantitative, time-limited ?targets? backed up by institutional and managerial rewards and sanctions has been a notable feature of performance improvement efforts in the National Health Service (NHS) in England since 1998 and especially in the period 2000-2004. Performance improved in the areas covered by English NHS targets, most markedly in relation to waiting times, but also in relation to treatment outcomes. None of the other parts of the United Kingdom followed England and similar trends were not observed, particularly not in waiting times, despite similar injections of funds. Despite the improvements in performance in target areas, targets were criticised, principally, for having perverse and unintended consequences (e.g. distorting priorities, encouraging ?gaming?, etc) which could have potentially out-weighed their benefits. On the other hand most experts in performance improvement in public services argue that carefully chosen, incentivised targets are a useful part of the performance management repertoire when used well (e.g. when sanctions and rewards are proportionate). Some dysfunctional consequences are to be expected, but can be mitigated. Given the similarities between the English NHS and the New Zealand public health system, there is scope to use targets and related incentives sparingly to improve performance in New Zealand in areas of high importance to government and the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Mays, 2006. "Use of Targets to Improve Health System Performance: English NHS Experience and Implications for New Zealand," Treasury Working Paper Series 06/06, New Zealand Treasury.
  • Handle: RePEc:nzt:nztwps:06/xx

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item


    performance measurement; performance management; performance improvement methods; target-setting; control of public services;

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:nzt:nztwps:06/xx. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Web and Publishing Team, The Treasury). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.