Getting Australia S Health on Track 2021 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Getting Australia’s Health on Track
2016
This complementary suite of priority policy actions will help get Australia on track to reach the 2025 targets and significantly reduce preventable illness and disability in the population. The priority policy actions were developed by Australia's leading chronic disease scientists, researchers and clinicians. Designed to tackle shared risk factors for chronic disease, these actions will drive change where it is needed most.
Achieving better health in Australia in the next five years
The Medical Journal of Australia, 1993
A ustralia has recently taken several important steps to further improve the health of the population. Goals and targets for Australia's health in the year 2000 and beyond (the Targets report), 1 and a National Health Strategy Issues paper on health promotion, Pathways to better neettt« were published early in 1993. Together these documents define an agenda for change in the ways Australia provides health care and in the expected outcomes.
Australia: the healthiest country by 2020
The Medical journal of Australia, 2008
In April 2008, the Australian Government established the National Preventative Health Taskforce to develop a National Preventative Health Strategy by June 2009. The Strategy will provide a blueprint for tackling the burden of chronic disease currently caused by obesity, tobacco and excessive consumption of alcohol. The Taskforce has produced a discussion paper, Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. It presents a wide range of options, some of them contentious, to achieve this ambitious target.
Setting Goals for Australia's Health
Community Health Studies, 2010
Without a vision. the people perish, said the prophet. The concept of muddling through-the strategic method of Yes Minister!-guides contemporary mainstream health care. Utilitarian incrementalism. whereby we go on doing what we've been doing for the good of the greatest number, is free of visions. goals. targets. Yet the cost of doing nothing (or too little) in preventing ill-health is the same as the cost of treatment and care for preventable illness and injury plus income maintmance and associated loss of productivity. Prevention is generally preferable to treatment, although its benefits do not always accrue in the short term. Current non-planning encourages and reinforces the inequalities in the health of Australians and leaves the potential for prevention unexploited. The prepondera:ice of preventable illness and premature mortality suggests tha: the potential for intervention to improve health and reduce expenditure in the long term is very great. The National Health and Medical Research Council has expressed such a view and the Better Heal1.h Commission concluded that. while the costs of go3d prevention measures initially exceed benefits, savings in averted illness, disability. premature death and health care costs are substantial.' Predictions of sa\.ings should, of course, be treated with caution but preventable premature death, illness and injury exact a m.issive toll in Australia. Accurate costings of their burcen on health services and loss of productivity are hampered by inadequate and inaccurate information but estimates obtained from various sources give some indication of their magnitude: motor vehicle accidents 3.5billionpoornutrition3.5 billion poor nutrition 3.5billionpoornutrition6.0 billion 0 cardiovascular disease 2.0billionalcoholabuse2.0 billion alcohol abuse 2.0billionalcoholabuse1.5 billion The financial reasons for intervention are perhaps nowhere more graphically illustrated than in the case of AIDS. for which only effective health promotion measures stand between the community and a huge increase in health expenditure. It is expected that more than 2000 cases 0 1 AIDS will be diagnosed in Australia by 1990? and this will lead to major treatment and institL tional costs.
2015
submission to Australia: the healthiest country by 2020 A discussion paper prepared by the National Preventative
Setting national health goals and targets rests on the basic premise that focussed health interventions will achieve health improvements. Analyses of health differentials indicate an underlying structure to disease patterns.' Improvements in both population health status and effectiveness of the health system can result from programs aimed at modifiable factors in this underlying structure. The setting of goals and targets provides a mechanism for focussing interventions on these modifiable factors.
Positioning health promotion as a policy priority in Australia
Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2017
Recent Australian scholarship has provided a clear rationale for investing in health promotion policy in Australia. 1 This is consistent with the aim of the Australian Health Promotion Association (AHPA) 'to advance the health of all people in Australia through leadership, advocacy and support for health promotion action in practice, research, evaluation and policy'. 2 A key element of AHPA advocacy platform has involved the adoption of a multi-partisan approach. This means engagement with political parties of different persuasions as a means to support health advancement in Australia. One recent opportunity involved participation in the Labor Party's National Health Policy Summit (the Summit). It was hosted jointly by the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, the Shadow Minister for Health, and the Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health. Held in Canberra on 3 March 2017, it was an invitation-only event attended by 150+ representatives of professional health bodies from around Australia. The authors of this editorial represented AHPA at the Summit, and the commentary reflects our views based on participation in the Summit (it does not necessarily reflect a policy position of AHPA).