There are a bunch of different factors that are considered when prioritising patients: obviously the disease itself, but also factors intrinsic to the patient - age, comorbidities, prognosis, familial history, etc. It's a long list. And just like (for example) a familial history of a certain disease meaning someone should be a little higher on the priority list, ethnicity actually makes sense to consider, particularly if you look at overall cost to the health system.

Regardless of the reasons, it's been well studied that Maori and Pasifika have generally poorer health outcomes. This has a direct, measurable cost to NZ and it makes sense to try to reduce this. At a granular level, if you have two otherwise identical patients, where one is pakeha and the other Maori, it likewise makes sense to prioritise the Maori patient to try to reduce those overall costs.

It's not about special treatment (excuse the pun) for Maori/Pasifika. It's about doing the most cost-effective thing for the NZ Health System.

[–] innercitadel 1 points 1 year ago

I do understand and have sympathy for the argument for prioritising Maori when viewed from a Te Tiriti lens. However I respectfully don't understand the argument for putting Pacific peoples in the same category as Maori. Yes Pacific peoples have poor health outcomes but so do many other groups like refugees who do not get priority. The historical low wage worker import argument doesn't cut it either because Chinese people were also brought over yet Chinese don't receive special treatment.