Guide for proposers
Proposal name
Summary of proposal in 150 words
including rationale, aims, costs and
benefits.
Population Health
Criteria
Amount
Existing/ expanded
service
New service
Type of
funding
Pilot project/ service
If sustainable,
for how long?
One Off
Sustainable
Requirements (address any or all as appropriate)
Reducing
inequities –
Maori
All else being equal, a proposal that is targeted to and delivered by Maori is
given a higher score. A mainstream service that serves many Maori patients or
clients but doesn’t specifically target the service to their needs will not score as
highly.
Reducing
inequities –
other vulnerable
populations
All else being equal, a proposal that is targeted to other vulnerable groups and
delivered by the other vulnerable group is given a higher score. A mainstream
service that serves many other vulnerable patients or clients but doesn’t
specifically target the service to their needs will not score as highly.
Volume
The number of users or patients expected to benefit from the proposal annually.
A service which benefits more people is given a higher score.
Early
intervention
Likelihood the proposal will promote a wellness model and achieve ‘upstream’
changes. These might be:
Primary prevention e.g. in the context of rheumatic fever: throat swabbing to
avoid/detect disease
Secondary prevention e.g. in the context of rheumatic fever: penicillin injections
to prevent recurrences
Tertiary prevention e.g. in the context of rheumatic fever: heart valve
replacements, lifestyle changes.
Benefit/
individuals and
groups
This assesses health benefits or outcomes identified in the proposal accrued by
individuals and their family and carers due to the intervention. Benefits should be
quantified if possible including evidence of quantifiable benefits.
Effects on health
service demand
Proposals should identify any effects on demand on other health services. A
proposal which impacts on other health services positively is given a higher
score.
Intersectoral
Collaboration
Patient Experience
Type of proposal
The proposal should identify any collaboration with services provided in other
sectors (non-health). A proposal which demonstrates collaboration with other
sectors to achieve better outcomes is given a higher score.
Service design
How the proposed initiative will improve:
integration
models of care
scope of practice
clinical pathways.
Acceptability to
stakeholders
Demonstrates, at this initial stage, acceptability to (not just engagement with)
stakeholders, including consumers, providers and other agencies (health and
intersectoral).
Evidence of
effectiveness
All else being equal, a proposal for a service with strong evidence of
effectiveness will be given a higher score.
Access –
geographical
A proposal that improves geographical access (that is, provide services closer to
home) is given a higher score.
Access – cost
for patient/ user
A proposal that reduces costs to the patient or user is given a higher score.
Access –
timeliness
A proposal which makes interventions more timely is given a higher score.
Cultural safety
A proposal which demonstrates cultural safety in the provision of services is
given a higher score.
Timing of benefit
A proposal identifying that health benefits or outcomes will occur more quickly
will receive a higher score.
Cost & productivity
Quality, safety
improvements
A proposal which achieves significant quality and/or safety improvements is
given a higher score.
Cost savings
Interventions with larger cost savings or offsets are scored higher than those with
low cost savings or offsets.
Timing of cost
savings
A proposal whose savings occur more quickly will receive a higher score.
Cost/ person
Lower-cost interventions are scored more highly than costly interventions.
Efficiency,
productivity
A proposal that identifies larger cost efficiencies or productivity gains will score
more highly.
Project Initiation
Document
A Project Initiation Document must accompany the proposal. This criteria
assesses how complete and robust it is. It is either considered adequate or
inadequate.
Other critical criteria
Other factors that have not been captured in the standard set of criteria above,
but are considered by the SIF PG to be critical in judging the merits of the
proposal. The SIF PG will describe these.
Prioritisation proposal form (to be completed by Proposer)
Proposal name
Summary of proposal in 150 words
including rationale, aims, costs and
benefits.
Criteria
Population Health
Reducing
inequities- Maori
Reducing
inequities –
other vulnerable
populations
Volume
Early
intervention
Benefit/
individuals and
groups
Effects on health
service demand
Intersectoral
Collaboration
Service design
Evidence of
effectiveness
Patient Experience
Access –
geographical
Access – cost
for patient/ user
Access –
timeliness
Cultural safety
Timing of benefit
Quality, safety
improvements
Acceptability to
stakeholders
Cost &
productivity
Cost savings
Timing of cost
savings
Cost/ person
Efficiency,
productivity
Type of proposal
Amount
Existing/ expanded
service
New service
Type of
funding
Pilot project/ service
If sustainable,
for how long?
Requirements (address any or all as appropriate)
One off
Sustainable
Service Priority Assessment Tool (used by the Prioritisation Group)
Summary of proposal in 150 words
including rationale, aims, costs and
benefits.
Type of proposal
Existing/ expanded
service
New service
Type of
funding
Pilot project/ service
If sustainable,
for how long?
Criteria
Reducing
inequities –
Maori
Population Health
Patient Experience
n/a
0
1
22
3
4
Service with no
targeting for
Maori
Service with little
targeting to
Maori
Service mostly
targeted to
Maori
Service fully
targeted to
Maori
Service fully targeted
to Maori and Maoriprovided
Untargeted
service
Untargeted
service but
serving a high
need, poor
health
population
Some targeting
to those with
poor health and
high need
Fully targeted to
those with the
poor health and
high need
Fully targeted to those
with poor health and
high need and
engages this
population in service
planning and/or
delivery
Volume
Not quantified
<100
100-999
1,000-5,000
>5,000
Early
intervention
Not quantified
Minimal
Mixed
Predominant
Solely
Benefit/
individuals and
groups
Little, if any,
direct benefit
Some
unquantifiable
benefit to a
small number of
people
Some
quantifiable
benefit to a
small number of
people
Significant
unquantifiable
benefit to a large
number of
people
Significant
quantifiable benefit to
a large number of
people
Effects on
health service
demand
Negative
Neutral
Mildly positive
Moderately
positive
Significantly positive
Intersectoral
Collaboration
Not at all
Minimal
Moderate based
on existing
intersectoral
relationships
Significant
based on
existing
intersectoral
relationships
Significant and
establishes a new
collaborative
relationship
Service design
Not at all
Minimal
Some in one of
the four areas of
redesign
Significant in
one or two of the
four areas of
redesign
Significant in three or
four of the areas of
redesign
No evidence or
consensus of
clinical opinion
Consensus of
clinical opinion
but no evidence
Some evidence
Good
international
evidence
Good New Zealand
evidence
Accessibility –
geographical
Not quantified
May have
minimal impact
Will have some
impact
May have high
impact
Will have high impact
Access – cost
for patient/ user
Not quantified
May have
minimal impact
Will have some
impact
May have high
impact
Will have high impact
Access –
timeliness
Not quantified
May have
minimal impact
Will have some
impact
May have high
impact
Will have high impact
Not
May have
minimal impact
Will have some
impact
May have high
impact
Will have high impact
>10 years
5-10 years
3-4 years
1-2 years
<1 year
Quality/safety
improvements
Not quantified
May have
minimal impact
Will have some
impact
May have high
impact
Will have high impact
Acceptability to
stakeholders
Not shown
Minimal
Moderate
High
Stakeholder driven
Evidence of
effectiveness
Cost & productivity
One Off
Sustainable
Scoring criteria
N/a
Reducing
inequities –
other vulnerable
populations
Amount
n/a
Cultural safety
Timing of
benefit
Don’t
know
Cost savings
n/a
Costs will
increase or are
not quantified
Neutral effect
Up to $100k net
cost reduction
Up to $500k net
cost reduction
>$500k net cost
reduction
Timing of cost
savings
n/a
>10 years
6-9 years
3-5 years
2 years
Within 1 year
Cost/ person
>$5,000 per
person
$1,000-$5,000
per person
$100-$999 per
person
$10-99 per
person
$0-9 per person
Efficiency,
productivity
Not quantified
Minimal
Some
Moderate
High
Other critical criteria
Score
Proposal name