TB Testing in New Zealand - OV procurement part 3

Sometimes we can learn how policies might work by looking at how they have worked in other countries. Its important to be careful though: variations in context mean that the effects might not always be the same. With that in mind, one place to look to see how changing to a competitive system of TB testing is by going to New Zealand. Neoliberalism - the pursuit of competition and market efficiency - is shot through agriculture here, and it also affects the way TB testing is funded, governed and organised. There's lots to tell on that, but let me save it for another time and just deal with the way TB testing is delivered in New Zealand.

Just like the AHVLA's proposals, TB testing is contracted out on a competitive basis - it has been since 2003. The country is divided up into 23 TB testing districts - you can see them here on the map.

So who does the testing in New Zealand, and what effect has competition for TB testing had on veterinary practices in New Zealand?

Most testing (19 out of 23 areas) is done by a large company called AsureQuality. Every time TB testing contracts have come up, AQ - or its former guises of Asure and Agriquality - has always secured the most testing areas. Small local veterinary practices have, in the main, got nowhere. Why is this the case? Well, AQ is a state-owned enterprise. It used to be part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and so has a long institutional history of conducting TB tests. It also does a lot of other farm assurance and meat inspection work and has a large and flexible workforce to deliver the volume of testing required. In short, it has stability, it is low risk. And that is what the Animal Health Board - responsible for TB in New Zealand - wanted. What they don't want is untried combinations of small veterinary groups delivering testing in case it goes wrong. The stakes are too high.

Its not totally true that the veterinary profession have no foothold in TB testing in New Zealand. They do. One company - Vet Enterprises - won contracts for 4 of the testing areas. Vet Ent are quite a large company though, with practices in all the areas in which they won contracts. Before Vet Ent, another veterinary group also secured 4 testing areas - and this is relevant to the UK situation. Like the AHVLAs proposal, this group relied on a network of practices to deliver TB testing. Did it work? Let's say that their contract was not renewed when it came up for renewal. The problem? It was difficult to coordinate the work of all the practices. And when some practices realised that they weren't making any money on TB testing, they dropped out, leaving a TB testing hole to be filled. Perhaps that's not too much of a problem to handle in areas with low TB. But in an area like Devon or Gloucestershire, practices pulling out could cause a big problem in meeting the demand for tests.

The final question for New Zealand: how has the dominance of AQ affected the veterinary profession as a whole? Haven't practices suffered? In short, no. New Zealand practices never really became hooked on TB testing income as they have here, partly because it has never been seen as a job for vets. Indeed, lay technicians are used for 90% of cattle tests.

Lets hope that practices don't undercut themselves when bidding for the contracts as happened in New Zealand. But in the UK, practices' current reliance on TB testing may affect their judgement. AHVLA know that: its what they are hoping will drive down costs. And that is the risk with competition: that the delivery of TB testing is compromised as a result. The next part of this analysis will focus on what may be conflicting goals of OV procurement: competition and quality.



Part 4: competition or quality - what do AHVLA want?