Any changes resulting from the review, delayed by the postponing of the 2011 census, will be introduced in the 2016-17 financial year.
A technical advisory group, which includes Southern District Health Board planning and funding executive director Sandra Boardman, has been meeting monthly since September as part of the population-based funding formula (PBFF) review project.
Responding to an Official Information Act (OIA) request regarding progress on the review, acting national director of the National Health Board business unit Michael Hundleby said early discussions had largely centred on the ‘‘policy side of what the formula is trying to achieve''.
No decisions had been made on the model structure.
All 20 DHBs had been consulted on two aspects of funding: extra money for providing services to rural areas and for the most complex (tertiary) hospitals, Mr Hundleby said.
Both these funding issues affect the Southern District Health Board.
The board has previously expressed concern it is underfunded for serving its scattered rural population.
The rural ‘‘adjuster'' for this in the formula has not been updated since 2004.
Dunedin Hospital is classed as a lower-level tertiary hospital, along with Waikato Hospital. The five major tertiary hospitals are located in Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington.
The project will look at the structure of the present formula to ensure ‘‘it continues to allocate funding according to relative health need, including shifting the system towards wellness, and explore opportunities for improving the allocation of funding between districts'', according to the terms of reference for the advisory group, released under the OIA.
University of Otago research published in 2012 raised concerns about the transparency and fairness of the formula and found the money allocated per person varied by almost 25% across the country's district health boards.
Comment in Ministry of Health papers on the review released last year suggested even if the review did no more than update census figures, there could still be large shifts in funding and the impact on boards would need to be considered.
The advisory group's role is to provide independent advice and objective guidance to the project team on policy choices and technical options that might be applied to achieving the stated goals of the project.
The group will also be required to independently review and provide quality assurance around the technical PBFF model produced and support the project team to put forward ‘‘coherent'' advice on any proposed technical changes, including options.
Any recommendations from the review will require approval by the Ministers of Health and Finance.
Cabinet will also need to approve any changes to the goals and/or structure of the model, the group's terms of reference state.
