Remember all that federal Labor arty talk about finally fixing the financing of the public hospital system? Well, forget them. The first state to make a mockery of the new system was Tasmania, writes Richard Farmer.
Melissa Sweet offers a rather brutal summary of health reforms: a lot of money is being spent for most uncertain outcomes, while reforms seem to benefit the pharmaceutical industries more than the public purse.
Policy announcements don’t mean a lot until you see the actual money committed in the Budget, and this time the health sector was pleasantly surprised, writes Carol Bennett.
On top of the public hospital reform spending already announced with the COAG agreement, the 2010 Budget invests a further $2.2 billion over four years in health and hospital reform.
The Health Department may be able to write a chook raffle policy, but it has few employees with much experience of running health services, and too many decision-making generic career bureaucrats without any clinical background, says psychiatrist Alan Rosen.
Cost-shifting, blame-shifting and patient-shifting are an integral part of our health system, and the COAG health reforms are unlikely to signal their demise, writes Sydney emergency registrar Dr Clare Skinner.
Kevin Rudd has won support for his sweeping health reforms among voters, according to a new Essential Research poll, with most believing it will have a positive impact on health services.
Why couldn't Victoria -- a state with a strong track record of managing hospitals -- continue to operate its health care system as normal as a trial? Why didn't we embrace competitive federalism? asks Graeme Orr.
Kevin Rudd is coming out of the health reforms looking a little awkward -- lots of extra cash was given away and WA still isn't on board -- but he still looks a lot healthier than backed-into-a-corner Tony Abbott, writes Michelle Grattan.