Model 3: Fee-for-service The Service calculates a fee for activity, and enters into an MOU, or contract, with external funders for the delivery of the Service on the of an invoice for services provided Advantages Considerations Status quo Administration costs sit with Service Fees can be set to cost of service Requires MOU to be agreed by hosts, and all referrers Flexible and responsive to changes in demand Cost may be considered a deterrent to referral and cost May be different cost and fee structures across the Invoice can be to either referring DHB or DHB Service providers of domicile. Services provided for the local population generally not invoiced, ie, a calculation required to set DHB funding ‘base’ Referring DHBs have limited visibility over forecast costs. Model 4: Mixed model A lead DHB receives a programme fee to support delivery of national service components, with activity funded through IDFs or fee-for-service Advantages Considerations Recognises components of the As with top slice, would require GM agreement to ‘national’ Service, while retaining responsiveness to establishment and any future increases demand driven activity. Administration costs associated with arrangements sit with Service Requires MOU to be agreed by hosts, and all referrers Cost may be considered a deterrent to referral Referring DHBs have limited visibility over forecast costs Funding to Host DHB.
Model 3: Fee-for-service The Service calculates a fee for activity, and enters into an MOU, or contract, with external funders for the delivery of the Service on the of an invoice for services provided Advantages Considerations Status quo Fees can be set to cost of service Flexible and responsive to changes in demand and cost Invoice can be to either referring DHB or DHB of domicile. Administration costs sit with Service Requires MOU to be agreed by hosts, and all referrers Cost may be considered a deterrent to referral May be different cost and fee structures across the Service providers Services provided for the local population generally not invoiced, ie, a calculation required to set DHB ‘base’ funding Referring DHBs have limited visibility over forecast costs. Model 4: Mixed model A lead DHB receives a programme fee to support delivery of national service components, with activity funded through IDFs or fee-for-service Advantages Considerations Recognises ‘national’ components of the Service, while retaining responsiveness to demand driven activity. As with top slice, would require GM agreement to establishment and any future increases Administration costs associated with arrangements sit with Service Requires MOU to be agreed by hosts, and all referrers Cost may be considered a deterrent to referral Referring DHBs have limited visibility over forecast costs Funding to Host DHB.
service_model_for_national_perinatal_pathology_services_-_final_v1_0.docx