Comments on: Why the private health insurance changes won’t break the system

By: Jennifer Doggett

Jennifer Doggett — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

James K, if you look at page 21 of the AIHW Report (Table 13) it gives a breakdown of the funding from the non-Government sector over the last ten years. It shows that during this time the share of funding contributed by PHI dropped from 11.3% to 7.2% while the proportion contributed through out-of-pocket payments increased from 15.6% to 17.4%.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

‘In 2005–06, government funding of health expenditure was $58.9 billion (67.8%), with the
Australian Government contributing $37 billion (42.9%) and state, territory and local
governments contributing $22 billion (24.9%). The non-government sector (households,
private health insurance and other non-government) funded the remaining $28 billion (32.2%) .
From 1995–96 to 2005–06, the relative shares of funding of total health expenditure remained
fairly stable for both the government and non-government sectors.
Around two-thirds of funding was provided by governments and one-third by
non-government.” -From: “Health expenditure Australia 2005–06” copied from Australian Institute of Health and Welfare website. How does that tally with “Jennifer Dogget, health policy analyst”. Answer : it would seem not to. Crikey Philosophy: ‘Do not allow the facts get in the way of left wing lobsided pontificating’

By: Di Keller

Di Keller — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

At last !!, some good old fashioned critical analysis !! Another point that hasn’t registered is that the people that will be be letting go the their private health insurance are very likely those who joined because they had to! Many, if not most ,of them still used public facilities without declaring their private cover. I know two women who had babies like this! I doubt there will be much more call on public hospitals.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

WRT “consumer out-of-pocket payments”: In 2005–06, of the estimated $15.4 billion out-of-pocket recurrent expenditure by individuals on health goods and services : • 34.2% was spent on medications – 8.0% on PBS and RPBS patient contributions – 26.2% on other medications (see Table 65 for a detailed definition) • 23.2% on dental services • 13.4% on aids and appliances • 11.3% on medical services • 10.7% on other health practitioners (such as physiotherapists, chiropractors and podiatrists). PHI basic cover covers only medical expenses. Daggett is not comparing like with like. I could go through this article point by point and expose similar dishonesty on each and every occasion but there is simply not enough room. Kez, read the original report on : http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10529 . This is an ideology driven article not a caring one and yes Kez I did read it….obviously

By: Kez

Kez — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

JamesK, did you not read the article at all? Jennifer talks about the large impact that out of pocket expenses from individuals has. And then you go ahead and quote “non government health expenditure” which INCLUDES out of pocket expenses from individuals as well as PHI. The statistics that you’re providing are completely consistent with her arguments and statistics.

By: Graham Palmer

Graham Palmer — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Let’s be clear, both the AMA and PHI represent their own vested interests and not those of their patients or members. If as Jennifer Dogget’s statistics show that the demand for public hospital beds is not reduced in proportion to funds invested in PHI, what is the point of the government spending billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidise PHI? Far more cost effective ways of encouraging people to take out PHI are available without handing billions of dollars to middlemen who are hand in glove with the specialists whose numbers the AMA deliberately rations in order to maximise their incomes.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

In addition to the roughly 1/3 rd of non government funding of total health care spending in Australia, the cost to the government of the proportion of the projected 1 million people who will now opt out and enter the public system is proportionally higher than the cost to the government of the government share of those same patient’s private hospital health care costs. They will also have to pay in addition signficant further public hospital infrastructure costs. Jennifer Doggett’s artistic use of published data figures is dishonest in terms of the impact of 1 million people leaving PHI. And!…. there are no individual contributions to a patient’s use of public hospital services. The public system, already groaning at the seams, can only get worse without a proportionally higher contribution of government spending and will certainly not be getting any better than the present already unacceptable situation.

By: C Rytmeister

C Rytmeister — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I suspect that a number of people with private health cover who would normally be expected to drop it on economic grounds will actually stick with it. These are the people who have had bad experiences in the public system. I have always been a defender of the public system. However, after hearing about what my mother endured during a recent admission to Royal North Shore (the private hospital did not have any beds) I would recommend keeping private health insurance (at least you get your own doctor, even if you don’t get a bed in a private hospital). My mother’s experience included: unhygienic facilities (filthy, soiled toilets); the arrogant attitude and rudeness of some staff (in particular a Registrar who misrepresented the treating specialist’s opinion and the treatment); the lack of equipment provided for a recovering orthopaedic patient (and the patient’s own equipment being “lost” while she was away in theatre); several delays in providing badly needed pain relief; and last but certainly not least, the failure to document the medication given in the patient’s notes. This last was potentially very serious, as a second dose of an anti-clotting drug was almost administered when the patient was transferred to the private hospital - if she hadn’t been on the ball enough to insist that she had already had a shot of Clexane and that they check with RNS she could well have received a double dose. It seems pretty obvious that there are systemic problems at RNS (not just the odd mistake, which, while not satisfactory is more understandable).

So I’m telling people to hang on to their private health insurance, even if it does make economic sense to drop it (and even though I am ideologically opposed to the taxpayer subsidising it).

Alternatively, raise the Medicare levy so we don’t have two classes of health provision in this nation.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

To Graham Palmer: The AMA have absolutely no power to control the number of specialists but, like Crikey, do not allow easily obtainable facts to taint your obvious prejudices.