Surely a case for outcome-based contracting

Outcome-based contracting would have solved this:

A stop smoking provider says the decision to cut its contract on the basis it has refused to hand out vaping kits as part of its cessation programme was not a part of the contract when it was signed.

Takiri Mai te Ata Trust regional manager Catherine Manning said the Wellington-based trust received an email this week stating it had to either start supplying the vape kits or have its contract terminated, despite signing a new contract earlier that year.

Vape kits are effective in stopping smoking - and more effective than patches.  

If a stop-smoking provider didn't want to distribute vape kits, flipping that provider to outcome-based payments could make sense. If whatever they've come up with is as effective as vaping, then they'd be paid for that outcome. And if they were just handing out ineffective patches to no reduction in smoking rates, they'd wind up having to close down the service. 

Outcome monitoring's a good idea regardless. But outcome-based payments can help the state be agnostic across methods.