Publish or be damned: Individual Funding Requests and the publicity condition.

Many jurisdictions have processes to consider Individual Funding Requests but, with few exceptions, the decisions made with respect to these are not made public. Drawing upon Daniels and Sabin's account of the requirements of procedural justice, Accountability for Reasonableness, this paper considers several arguments for and against publishing individual funding request decisions. After briefly reviewing the case for publicity as a requirement of procedural justice and canvassing several arguments against publicity, we consider whether patient confidentiality justifies suppressing funding decisions. We claim that, with one possible exception, publication of individual funding request decisions does not raise concerns that are different in kind from those that apply to publication of legal judgments relating to healthcare, and that the protections instituted in that setting should be sufficient to allow publication of funding decisions. The discussion concludes with several cautionary notes.

Geography matters: the prevalence of diabetes in the Auckland Region by age, gender and ethnicity.

AIM: To determine whether the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in the greater Auckland Region varies by General Electoral District (GED). METHODS: Using encrypted National Health Identifiers and record linkage of routine health datasets, we identified a regional cohort of people with diagnosed diabetes in 2011 from inpatient records and medication dispensing. The geographical unit of a person's residence (meshblock) was used to determine the GED of residence. We calculated prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals and used binary logistic regression to map geographical variations in diabetes. RESULTS: An estimated 63,014 people had diagnosed diabetes in Auckland in 2011, a prevalence of 8.5% of the adult population ≥30 years of age. We found significant variation in diabetes prevalence by age, gender, ethnicity and GED. There was a more than five-fold difference in the unadjusted prevalence of diabetes by GED, ranging from 3.2% (3.1 to 3.4%) in the North Shore to 17.3% (16.8 to 17.7%) in Mangere. Such variations remained after binary logistic regression adjusting for socio-demographic variables. Compared to New Zealand Europeans, Indian people had the highest odds of having diabetes at 3.85 (3.73 to 3.97), while the odds of people living in the most deprived areas having diabetes was nearly twice that of those living in least deprived areas (OR 1.93, [1.87 to 1.99]). Geographic variations in diabetes remained after adjusting for socio-demographic circumstances: people living in GEDs in south-west Auckland were at least 60% more likely than people living in the North Shore GED to have diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the prevalence of diabetes by GED in Auckland that persists across strata of age group, gender and ethnicity, and persists after controlling for these same variables. These inequities should prompt action by politicians, policymakers, funders, health providers and communities for interventions aimed at reducing such inequities. Geography and its implications on access to and availability of health resources appears to be a key driver of inequity in diabetes rates, supporting an argument for interventions based on geography, especially a public health rather than an individual risk approach.