National health workforce regulation

Abstract

Purpose In 2010, Australia introduced the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the health professions (the Australian scheme) creating a legislative framework for a national system of health workforce regulation, delivering a model of collective (and multi-level) government involvement in regulatory activities. The purpose of this paper is to examine how its governance arrangement compares to different national systems and other health regulatory bodies in Australia. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative case study is informed by documentary analysis in conjunction with policy mapping. This is part of a larger project investigating the policy pathway which led to establishment of the Scheme. The authors compare the Scheme with other Australian health standard setting and regulatory bodies. Findings The Australian scheme’s governance model supported existing constitutional arrangements, and enabled local variations. This facilitated the enduring interest of ministers (and governments) on matters of health workforce and articulated the activities of the new regulatory player. It maintains involvement of the six states and two territories, with the Commonwealth Government, and profession-specific boards and accreditation agencies. This resulted in a unique governance framework delivering a new model of collective ministerial responsibility. The governance design is complex, but forges a new way to embed existing constitutional arrangements within a tripartite arrangement that also delivers National Boards specific to individual health professions and an organisation to administer regulatory activities. Originality/value This study demonstrates that effective design of governance arrangements for regulatory bodies needs to address regulatory tasks to be undertaken as well as the existing roles, and ongoing interests of governments in participating in those regulatory activities. It highlights that a unique arrangement, while appearing problematic in theory may in practice deliver intended regulatory outcomes.