Informed, engaged communities for health

Filter by Categories
Aged care
Budgets
Federal Budget 2023-2024
Federal Budget October 2022
Federal Budget 2022-23
Federal Budget 2021-22
Budget2020Health
Federal Budget 2020-21
Federal Budget 2019-20
Climate and health
#HealthyCOP28
National Health and Climate Strategy
Climate emergency
Heatwaves
Healthcare sustainability
#CoveringClimateNow
#HealthyCOP27
#HealthyCOP26
COVID collection
Long COVID
COVID-19
COVIDwrap
COVID SNAPS
#JusticeCOVID
Caring for the Frontline
COVIDglobalMHseries
Croakey Conference News Service
#ASMIRT2023
#NSPC23
Our Democracy Forum
#AskMSF
#Lowitja2023
#GreenHealthForum23
#16nrhc
#GreenHealthForum22
#Heal2022
#ICEM22
#NAISA22
#NNF2022
#RANZCP2022
#RethinkAddiction
#RTP22
Choosing Wisely National Meeting 2022
Equally Well 2022 Symposium
GiantSteps22
Croakey Professional Services
NHLF series
#KidneyCareTogether
ACSQHC series
ACSQHC series 2022
ACSQHC series 2021
ACSQHC series 2020
ACSQHC series 2019
CATSINaM 25 Years
Croakey projects
#CroakeyLIVE #DigitalNationBuilding
The Health Wrap
ICYMI
@WePublicHealth
@WePublicHealth2023
#CroakeyVOICES
#SpeakingOurMinds
Croakey longreads
#CroakeyREAD
CroakeyEXPLORE
#PHAAThinkTank 2022
Summer reading 2022-2023
CroakeyGO
#CroakeyGO #NavigatingHealth
#GamblingHarms
#HeatwaveHealth
Mapping CroakeyGo
Determinants of health
Environmental determinants of health
Social determinants of health
Discrimination
Racism
Justice and policing
Poverty
Newstart/JobSeeker
Education
Housing
Internet access
Justice Reinvestment
Social policy
Commercial determinants of health
fossil fuels
Alcohol
Digital platforms
Food and beverages
Sugar tax
Tobacco
Vaping
Plain packaging
Gambling
Pharmaceutical industry
Arms industry
Disasters and extreme weather events
Disasters
Extreme weather events
Bushfires
Bushfire-emergency 2019-2020
Floods 2023
Floods 2022
Floods 2021
Floods 2011
Donor-funded journalism
Donor-funded journalism – 2023
Donor-funded journalism – 2022
Donor-funded journalism – 2021
Donor-funded journalism – 2020
Elections
#NSWvotesHealth2023
Victorian election 2022
Federal Election 2022
The Election Wrap 2022
#QldVotesHealth
SA election 2022
WA election 2021
Tasmanian election 2021
First Nations
Indigenous health
Uluru Statement
The Voice
Community controlled sector
Cultural determinants of health
Cultural safety
Social and emotional wellbeing
Indigenous education
Lowitja Institute
NT Intervention
WA community closures
Acknowledgement
#CTG10
#NTRC
#RCIADIC30Years
General health matters
Consumer health matters
Cancer
Cardiovascular disease
Chronic conditions
Non communicable diseases
Diabetes
Oral health
Disabilities
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD)
Genetics
Medical marijuana
Mental health
Suicide
Trauma
LGBTQIA+
HIV/AIDS
Women's health
HRT
Abortion
Men's health
Youth health
Child health
Pregnancy and childbirth
Organ transplants
Pain
Sexual health
Infectious diseases
Influenza
Mpox
Swine flu
Death and dying
Euthanasia
Global health matters
Global health
WHO
Conflict and war
Asylum seeker and refugee health
#WorldInTurmoil
Ebola
NHS
Health policy and systems
MyMedicare
Health reform
Workforce matters
Health financing and costs
Health regulation
Strengthening Medicare Taskforce 2022
Co-design
TGA
Royal Commissions
National Commission of Audit 2014
National Health Performance Authority
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Private health insurance
Healthcare
Primary healthcare
cohealth
Social prescribing
Rural and remote health
General practice
International medical graduates
Primary Health Networks
NDIS
Nursing and midwifery
Australian Medical Association
Allied healthcare
Pharmacy
Paramedics
Pathology
Naturopathy
Hospitals
Emergency departments and care
Palliative care
Safety and quality of healthcare
Adverse events
Choosing Wisely
Co-payments
Out of pocket costs
Complementary medicines
Conflicts of interest
Health ethics
Digital technology
Telehealth
E-health
Equally Well
Health Care Homes
Medicare Locals
MyHospitals website
Screening
Surgery
Tests
Media and health
Media-related issues
Public interest journalism
Misinformation and disinformation
Social media and healthcare
Health & medical marketing
The Conversation
Media Doctor Australia
News about Croakey
Public health and population health
Artificial intelligence
Public health
Prevention
Health inequalities
Human rights
Health in All Policies
Health impact assessment
Legal issues
Australian Centre for Disease Control
VicHealth
Health literacy
Health communications
Vaccination
Air pollution
Physical activity
Sport
Obesity
Road safety
Transport
Gun control
Illicit drugs
Injuries
Marriage equality
Occupational health
Violence
Weight loss products
#PreventiveHealthStrategy
#UnmetNeedsinPublicHealth
Government 2.0
Web 2.0
Nanny state
National Preventive Health Agency
Research matters
Health and medical research
#MRFFtransparency
Evidence-based issues
Cochrane Collaboration
Health and medical education
NHMRC
The Croakey Archives
#cripcroakey
#HealthEquity16
#HealthMatters
#IHMayDay (all years)
#IHMayDay 2014
#IHMayDay15
#IHMayday16
#IHMayDay17
#IHMayDay18
#LoveRural 2014
Croakey Conference News Service 2013 – 2021
2021 conferences
#21OPCC
#BackToTheFire
#FoodGovernance2021
#GiantSteps21
#GreenHealthForum21
#HealthClimateSolutions21
#HearMe21
#IndigenousClimateJustice21
#NNF2021
#RANZCP2021
#ShiftingGearsSummit
#ValueBasedCare
#WCepi2021
#YHFSummit
2020 conferences
#2020ResearchExcellence
#Govern4Health
#HealthReImagined
#SAHeapsUnfair
2019 Conferences
#ACEM19
#CPHCE19
#EquallyWellAust
#GiantSteps19
#HealthAdvocacyWIM
#KTthatWorks
#LowitjaConf2019
#MHAgeing
#NNF2019
#OKtoAsk2019
#RANZCOG19
#RANZCP2019
#ruralhealthconf
#VMIAC2019
#WHOcollabAHPRA
2018 conferences
#6rrhss
#ACEM18
#AHPA2018
#ATSISPC18
#CPHCE
#MHED18
#NDISMentalHealth
#Nurseforce
#OKToAsk2018
#RANZCOG18
#ResearchIntoPolicy
#VHAawards
#VMIACAwards18
#WISPC18
2017 conferences
#17APCC
#ACEM17
#AIDAconf2017
#BTH20
#CATSINaM17
#ClimateHealthStrategy
#IAHAConf17
#IDS17
#LBQWHC17
#LivingOurWay
#OKtoAskAu
#OTCC2017
#ResearchTranslation17
#TheMHS2017
#VMIACConf17
#WCPH2017
Australian Palliative Care Conference
2016 conferences
#AHHAsim16
#AHMRC16
#ANROWS2016
#ATSISPEP
#AusCanIndigenousWellness
#cphce2016
#CPHCEforum16
#CRANAplus2016
#IAMRA2016
#LowitjaConf2016
#PreventObesity16
#TowardsRecovery
#VMIAC16
#WearablesCEH
#WICC2016
2015 conferences
#CPHCEforum
#CRANAplus15
#HSR15
#NRHC15
#OTCC15
Population Health Congress 2015
2014 conferences
#IPCHIV14
AIDA Conference 2014
Congress Lowitja 2014
CRANAplus conference 2014
Cultural Solutions - Healing Foundation forum 2014
Lowitja Institute Continuous Quality Improvement conference 2014
National Suicide Prevention Conference 2014
Racism and children/youth health symposium 2014
Rural & Remote Health Scientific Symposium 2014
2013 conferences
Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation Forum 2013
Australian Health Promotion Association Conference 2013
Closing the Credibility Gap 2013
CRANAplus Conference 2013
FASD Conference 2013
Health Workforce Australia 2013
International Health Literacy Network Conference 2013
NACCHO Summit 2013
National Rural Health Conference 2013
Oceania EcoHealth Symposium 2013
PHAA conference 2013
Croakey Professional Services archive
#CommunityControl
#CommunityControl Twitter Festival
#COVIDthinktank21
Lowitja Indigenous knowledge translation series
Croakey projects archive
#CommunityMatters
#CroakeyFundingDrive 2022
#CroakeyLIVE #Budget2021Health
#CroakeyLIVE #USvotesHealth
#CroakeyLIVE Federal election 2022
#CroakeyYOUTH
#HousingJusticeAus
#IndigenousHealthSummit
#IndigenousNCDs
#JustClimate
#JustJustice
#LookingLocal
#OutOfPocket
#OutOfTheBox
#RuralHealthJustice
#TalkingTeeth
@WePublicHealth2022
@WePublicHealth2021
@WePublicHealth2020
AroundTheTraps
Croakey register of influence
Croakey Register of Influencers in Public Health
Croakey Register of Unreleased Documents
Gavin Mooney
Inside Story
Journal Watch
Naked Doctor
Poems of Public Health
Summer reading 2021-2022
Summer reading 2020-2021
Summer Reading 2019-2020
Summer Reading 2017-2018
Summer Reading 2016-2017
The Koori Woman
TOO MUCH of a Good Thing
Wonky Health
CroakeyGO archive 2017 – 2018
CroakeyGo 2018
#CroakeyGO #QuantumWords 2018
#CroakeyGO #VicVotes 2018
#CroakeyGO Albury 2018
#CroakeyGO Callan Park 2018
#CroakeyGO Carnarvon 2018
#CroakeyGO Marrickville 2018
#CroakeyGO Palm Island 2018
CroakeyGo 2017
#CroakeyGO Adelaide 2017
#CroakeyGO Melbourne 2017
#CroakeyGO Newcastle 2017
#CroakeyGO Sydney 2017
Elections and Budgets 2013 – 2019
#AusVotesHealth Twitter Festival 2019
#Health4NSW
Federal Election 2019
NSW Election 2019
Federal Budget 2018-19
Federal Budget 2017/18
NZ Election 2017
Federal Budget 2016-17
Federal Election 2016
#HealthElection16
NT Election 2016
Federal Budget 2015-16
Qld Election 2015
NSW Election 2015
Federal Budget 2014-15
Victorian Election 2014
Federal Budget 2013-14
Federal Election 2013
Federal Budget 2012-2013
Federal Budget 2011
Federal Budget 2010
Federal Election 2010
Federal Budget 2009-2010
Support non-profit public interest journalism
Filter by Categories
Aged care
Budgets
Federal Budget 2023-2024
Federal Budget October 2022
Federal Budget 2022-23
Federal Budget 2021-22
Budget2020Health
Federal Budget 2020-21
Federal Budget 2019-20
Climate and health
#HealthyCOP28
National Health and Climate Strategy
Climate emergency
Heatwaves
Healthcare sustainability
#CoveringClimateNow
#HealthyCOP27
#HealthyCOP26
COVID collection
Long COVID
COVID-19
COVIDwrap
COVID SNAPS
#JusticeCOVID
Caring for the Frontline
COVIDglobalMHseries
Croakey Conference News Service
#ASMIRT2023
#NSPC23
Our Democracy Forum
#AskMSF
#Lowitja2023
#GreenHealthForum23
#16nrhc
#GreenHealthForum22
#Heal2022
#ICEM22
#NAISA22
#NNF2022
#RANZCP2022
#RethinkAddiction
#RTP22
Choosing Wisely National Meeting 2022
Equally Well 2022 Symposium
GiantSteps22
Croakey Professional Services
NHLF series
#KidneyCareTogether
ACSQHC series
ACSQHC series 2022
ACSQHC series 2021
ACSQHC series 2020
ACSQHC series 2019
CATSINaM 25 Years
Croakey projects
#CroakeyLIVE #DigitalNationBuilding
The Health Wrap
ICYMI
@WePublicHealth
@WePublicHealth2023
#CroakeyVOICES
#SpeakingOurMinds
Croakey longreads
#CroakeyREAD
CroakeyEXPLORE
#PHAAThinkTank 2022
Summer reading 2022-2023
CroakeyGO
#CroakeyGO #NavigatingHealth
#GamblingHarms
#HeatwaveHealth
Mapping CroakeyGo
Determinants of health
Environmental determinants of health
Social determinants of health
Discrimination
Racism
Justice and policing
Poverty
Newstart/JobSeeker
Education
Housing
Internet access
Justice Reinvestment
Social policy
Commercial determinants of health
fossil fuels
Alcohol
Digital platforms
Food and beverages
Sugar tax
Tobacco
Vaping
Plain packaging
Gambling
Pharmaceutical industry
Arms industry
Disasters and extreme weather events
Disasters
Extreme weather events
Bushfires
Bushfire-emergency 2019-2020
Floods 2023
Floods 2022
Floods 2021
Floods 2011
Donor-funded journalism
Donor-funded journalism – 2023
Donor-funded journalism – 2022
Donor-funded journalism – 2021
Donor-funded journalism – 2020
Elections
#NSWvotesHealth2023
Victorian election 2022
Federal Election 2022
The Election Wrap 2022
#QldVotesHealth
SA election 2022
WA election 2021
Tasmanian election 2021
First Nations
Indigenous health
Uluru Statement
The Voice
Community controlled sector
Cultural determinants of health
Cultural safety
Social and emotional wellbeing
Indigenous education
Lowitja Institute
NT Intervention
WA community closures
Acknowledgement
#CTG10
#NTRC
#RCIADIC30Years
General health matters
Consumer health matters
Cancer
Cardiovascular disease
Chronic conditions
Non communicable diseases
Diabetes
Oral health
Disabilities
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD)
Genetics
Medical marijuana
Mental health
Suicide
Trauma
LGBTQIA+
HIV/AIDS
Women's health
HRT
Abortion
Men's health
Youth health
Child health
Pregnancy and childbirth
Organ transplants
Pain
Sexual health
Infectious diseases
Influenza
Mpox
Swine flu
Death and dying
Euthanasia
Global health matters
Global health
WHO
Conflict and war
Asylum seeker and refugee health
#WorldInTurmoil
Ebola
NHS
Health policy and systems
MyMedicare
Health reform
Workforce matters
Health financing and costs
Health regulation
Strengthening Medicare Taskforce 2022
Co-design
TGA
Royal Commissions
National Commission of Audit 2014
National Health Performance Authority
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Private health insurance
Healthcare
Primary healthcare
cohealth
Social prescribing
Rural and remote health
General practice
International medical graduates
Primary Health Networks
NDIS
Nursing and midwifery
Australian Medical Association
Allied healthcare
Pharmacy
Paramedics
Pathology
Naturopathy
Hospitals
Emergency departments and care
Palliative care
Safety and quality of healthcare
Adverse events
Choosing Wisely
Co-payments
Out of pocket costs
Complementary medicines
Conflicts of interest
Health ethics
Digital technology
Telehealth
E-health
Equally Well
Health Care Homes
Medicare Locals
MyHospitals website
Screening
Surgery
Tests
Media and health
Media-related issues
Public interest journalism
Misinformation and disinformation
Social media and healthcare
Health & medical marketing
The Conversation
Media Doctor Australia
News about Croakey
Public health and population health
Artificial intelligence
Public health
Prevention
Health inequalities
Human rights
Health in All Policies
Health impact assessment
Legal issues
Australian Centre for Disease Control
VicHealth
Health literacy
Health communications
Vaccination
Air pollution
Physical activity
Sport
Obesity
Road safety
Transport
Gun control
Illicit drugs
Injuries
Marriage equality
Occupational health
Violence
Weight loss products
#PreventiveHealthStrategy
#UnmetNeedsinPublicHealth
Government 2.0
Web 2.0
Nanny state
National Preventive Health Agency
Research matters
Health and medical research
#MRFFtransparency
Evidence-based issues
Cochrane Collaboration
Health and medical education
NHMRC
The Croakey Archives
#cripcroakey
#HealthEquity16
#HealthMatters
#IHMayDay (all years)
#IHMayDay 2014
#IHMayDay15
#IHMayday16
#IHMayDay17
#IHMayDay18
#LoveRural 2014
Croakey Conference News Service 2013 – 2021
2021 conferences
#21OPCC
#BackToTheFire
#FoodGovernance2021
#GiantSteps21
#GreenHealthForum21
#HealthClimateSolutions21
#HearMe21
#IndigenousClimateJustice21
#NNF2021
#RANZCP2021
#ShiftingGearsSummit
#ValueBasedCare
#WCepi2021
#YHFSummit
2020 conferences
#2020ResearchExcellence
#Govern4Health
#HealthReImagined
#SAHeapsUnfair
2019 Conferences
#ACEM19
#CPHCE19
#EquallyWellAust
#GiantSteps19
#HealthAdvocacyWIM
#KTthatWorks
#LowitjaConf2019
#MHAgeing
#NNF2019
#OKtoAsk2019
#RANZCOG19
#RANZCP2019
#ruralhealthconf
#VMIAC2019
#WHOcollabAHPRA
2018 conferences
#6rrhss
#ACEM18
#AHPA2018
#ATSISPC18
#CPHCE
#MHED18
#NDISMentalHealth
#Nurseforce
#OKToAsk2018
#RANZCOG18
#ResearchIntoPolicy
#VHAawards
#VMIACAwards18
#WISPC18
2017 conferences
#17APCC
#ACEM17
#AIDAconf2017
#BTH20
#CATSINaM17
#ClimateHealthStrategy
#IAHAConf17
#IDS17
#LBQWHC17
#LivingOurWay
#OKtoAskAu
#OTCC2017
#ResearchTranslation17
#TheMHS2017
#VMIACConf17
#WCPH2017
Australian Palliative Care Conference
2016 conferences
#AHHAsim16
#AHMRC16
#ANROWS2016
#ATSISPEP
#AusCanIndigenousWellness
#cphce2016
#CPHCEforum16
#CRANAplus2016
#IAMRA2016
#LowitjaConf2016
#PreventObesity16
#TowardsRecovery
#VMIAC16
#WearablesCEH
#WICC2016
2015 conferences
#CPHCEforum
#CRANAplus15
#HSR15
#NRHC15
#OTCC15
Population Health Congress 2015
2014 conferences
#IPCHIV14
AIDA Conference 2014
Congress Lowitja 2014
CRANAplus conference 2014
Cultural Solutions - Healing Foundation forum 2014
Lowitja Institute Continuous Quality Improvement conference 2014
National Suicide Prevention Conference 2014
Racism and children/youth health symposium 2014
Rural & Remote Health Scientific Symposium 2014
2013 conferences
Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation Forum 2013
Australian Health Promotion Association Conference 2013
Closing the Credibility Gap 2013
CRANAplus Conference 2013
FASD Conference 2013
Health Workforce Australia 2013
International Health Literacy Network Conference 2013
NACCHO Summit 2013
National Rural Health Conference 2013
Oceania EcoHealth Symposium 2013
PHAA conference 2013
Croakey Professional Services archive
#CommunityControl
#CommunityControl Twitter Festival
#COVIDthinktank21
Lowitja Indigenous knowledge translation series
Croakey projects archive
#CommunityMatters
#CroakeyFundingDrive 2022
#CroakeyLIVE #Budget2021Health
#CroakeyLIVE #USvotesHealth
#CroakeyLIVE Federal election 2022
#CroakeyYOUTH
#HousingJusticeAus
#IndigenousHealthSummit
#IndigenousNCDs
#JustClimate
#JustJustice
#LookingLocal
#OutOfPocket
#OutOfTheBox
#RuralHealthJustice
#TalkingTeeth
@WePublicHealth2022
@WePublicHealth2021
@WePublicHealth2020
AroundTheTraps
Croakey register of influence
Croakey Register of Influencers in Public Health
Croakey Register of Unreleased Documents
Gavin Mooney
Inside Story
Journal Watch
Naked Doctor
Poems of Public Health
Summer reading 2021-2022
Summer reading 2020-2021
Summer Reading 2019-2020
Summer Reading 2017-2018
Summer Reading 2016-2017
The Koori Woman
TOO MUCH of a Good Thing
Wonky Health
CroakeyGO archive 2017 – 2018
CroakeyGo 2018
#CroakeyGO #QuantumWords 2018
#CroakeyGO #VicVotes 2018
#CroakeyGO Albury 2018
#CroakeyGO Callan Park 2018
#CroakeyGO Carnarvon 2018
#CroakeyGO Marrickville 2018
#CroakeyGO Palm Island 2018
CroakeyGo 2017
#CroakeyGO Adelaide 2017
#CroakeyGO Melbourne 2017
#CroakeyGO Newcastle 2017
#CroakeyGO Sydney 2017
Elections and Budgets 2013 – 2019
#AusVotesHealth Twitter Festival 2019
#Health4NSW
Federal Election 2019
NSW Election 2019
Federal Budget 2018-19
Federal Budget 2017/18
NZ Election 2017
Federal Budget 2016-17
Federal Election 2016
#HealthElection16
NT Election 2016
Federal Budget 2015-16
Qld Election 2015
NSW Election 2015
Federal Budget 2014-15
Victorian Election 2014
Federal Budget 2013-14
Federal Election 2013
Federal Budget 2012-2013
Federal Budget 2011
Federal Budget 2010
Federal Election 2010
Federal Budget 2009-2010

The private health insurance rebate: why some are fans, and others are not

(Apologies Croakey readers – there is a gremlin in the system creating havoc with punctuation marks).

Michael Roff, CEO of the Australian Private Hospitals Association, wrote strongly in support of the private health insurance rebate in Crikey recently, in response to a statement from public health leaders supporting the Government’s plans to means-test the rebate.

Many of the subsequent comments on his article post highlight the inequities of a two-tier system, as well as concerns about medical costs. The PHI rebate has undoubtedly contributed to rising medical costs/incomes (two sides of the same coin, after all). It’s not surprising that it tends to be supported by the medical lobby – and not by those organisations with a wider concern for population health.

Below are two articles, first published in Crikey last week, responding to Roff’s piece, from public health and public policy perspectives. They argue the rebate is “shocking” health policy, and a “clumsy”, expensive way to fund healthcare.

***

Rebate is shocking health policy and shocking financial policy

Helen Keleher, Peter Sainsbury, Stephen Leeder, Fran Baum and Michael Moore write:

Michael Roff has responded to our piece, Time to support changes to private health insurance subsidy, in a partisan position that lacks both credibility and the level of analysis which he assets is lacking in our article. We respond with references!

1. Roff has no evidence that the means-testing of PHI is a “big lie”. The Minister has not committed to how the funds that would be freed-up will be spent, as Roff admits.

2. Roff is wrong to claim that the Productivity Commission found that private hospitals are 30% more efficient than public hospitals. What they found is a 3% difference in costs[1] and caution that once these data are weighted against casemix differences, the cost differences between private and public hospitals are not significant.

3. Roff is correct that we do not have a publicly funded dental scheme and we share his regret about that. We do however, have public dental programs which are essential for people who otherwise cannot afford the cost of dental care in the private sector. The majority of Australians do not have dental insurance. Perhaps that is because the amount rebatable by PHI “extras” schemes for dental care is a fraction of its cost and is therefore, not a particularly attractive product.

More importantly, what the ancillary cover means is that the less-well off majority of Australians who do not have PHI pay full price for dental and other ancillary cover, while the better-off are subsidised. This is an even more regressive effect than the financial support for PHI.

4. Roff claims that “the proportion of PHI policies that are excluding one or more types of treatment jumped from 13% to 24% and this has resulted in an 11% increase in insured patients being treated in public hospitals in the last six months”. The growth in private hospital activity was well established prior to the increases in PHI coverage between 1999 and 2001 and the introduction of the subsidy. Since July 2000, PHI coverage has been relatively stable at between 43% and 45% [2]. The rebate has had very little effect on PHI coverage, and effectively redistributed public funds away from the area of greatest need towards those who were already members of PHI funds, generally the most well to do in the community, 94% of whom were already members of PHI funds anyway. Allocating that money to public hospitals would represent a 50% increase in the level of Commonwealth hospital funding, which is a significant investment[3].

5. Roff makes the point that “private hospital admissions have grown at more than twice that rate or 5.5% and that if the rebate hadn’t been in place, then 8 million additional episodes of care would have had to be undertaken in public hospitals over the last 10 years at a cost of around 26 billion dollars to the taxpayer”. There does appear to be an association between rates of PHI cover and separations per 100,000 population in private hospitals. Whether this has reduced the load on public hospitals is a debatable. Certainly increasing the rate of private health insurance (PHI) coverage is likely to increase activity, giving rise to a situation known as “moral hazard”: the likelihood that people paying for insurance will be likely to use private hospitals services, and make claims[4].

6. Roff then asserts that “no pressure has been taken off the public system”. With population increases, an ageing population, increases in chronic disease and inequalities in health, this is not surprising.

7. Further, we add that because PHI cover is largely the province of the relatively well off, they are more likely to make the decision to take out PHI. The price of PHI is relatively “price inelastic” (relatively unresponsive to changes in price) whilst also being “income elastic” (relatively responsive to relative income levels), so changes in the price of PHI tend to have little effect on decisions by people on whether they will take out PHI cover[5].

8. We also make the point that the relatively affluent benefit most from both private health insurance and the Medicare plus safety net. The per capita distribution of Medicare safety net payments for 2006, using federal electoral districts (usually referred to as electorates) ranked according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics SEIFA index of comparative disadvantage shows that those electorates with high SEIFA scores received a disproportionate amount of the safety net rebates, whereas the most disadvantaged electorates (those with low SEIFA scores) tend to receive much lower average payment[6].

9. And finally, there is a finite supply of health care practitioners able to provide services in hospital, so if the incentives are arranged to make private practice more rewarding and less onerous then doctors in particular will prefer to perform more of their work in the private system, reducing their availability to the public sector[7]. This is unremarkable butis the opposite of what is claimed as a benefit by those who argue for continued subsidies for PHI.

As a postscript to our original article, we reiterate the point that the rebate is a poor strategy for supporting private health care if that’s what government wants to do. The government would be better subsidising private health care providers in return for contracted outcomes in volume and quality. Seldom is the point made that the subsidy costs the government money but they are not actually putting public money into total PHI premiums. This is illustrated in the simplified case below:

Before the rebate was introduced: X people paid $Y each in PHI premiums. Total premiums = $XY

After the introduction of the subsidy and lifetime rating: 1.5X people (ie 45% of pop vs 30% of pop) paid $0.7Y each in premiums. Total premiums = 1.5X x $0.7Y = $1.05XY

So, all that happened after the introduction of subsidies and lifetime rating, was that more people paid lower premiums (with the overall public contribution staying the same) while the govt gave an uncapped handout to the PHI funds with no strings attached. The subsidies did nothing; the jump in membership came with the “run for cover” campaign and lifetime rating, which occurred at the same time. This is shocking health policy and shocking financial policy.

Professor Helen Keleher is president of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA), Associate Professor Peter Sainsbury is a public health specialist in NSW, Stephen Leeder is professor of public health at the University of Sydney, Fran Baum is professor of public health at Flinders University and Michael Moore is CEO of the PHAA

� For references, see the bottom of post

***

Private health insurance is a clumsy, expensive way to fund healthcare

Ian McAuley, a lecturer in public sector finance at the University of Canberra, writes:

Michael Roff’s defence of private health insurance (PHI) is an extraordinary statement.

For a start, it is hard to understand why he is so concerned to defend the insurance industry. His interests surely relate to private hospitals; why is he defending a financial services industry which takes $1.9 billion a year in management overheads and profits – $1.9 billion which could be spent on health care in private or public hospitals?

More extraordinary is his claim that the Productivity Commission found that costs in private hospitals were 30 percent lower than public hospitals on a casemix-adjusted separation. The Commission has produced two major reports dealing with such comparisons. Their 2009 Report Public and Private Hospitals found only a three percent difference in costs – $4302 per separation in public hospitals and $4172 in private hospitals. In the larger states, NSW and Victoria, public hospitals had lower costs than private hospitals. A later study by the Commission Public and Private Hospitals: Multivariate Analysis found similar small differences. The general conclusion of these studies is that once casemix is considered, there is no evidence of significant cost differences between private and public hospitals.

Even if one mistrusts the Commission’s analysis, if private hospitals had lower costs than public hospitals we would expect state governments to be rushing to buy services from private hospitals. This is not happening.

Roff uses figures on admissions to support the notion that private hospitals are indeed taking pressure off public hospitals – after all this was a major justification for the PHI subsidies when they were introduced by the Coalition Government.

This is a one-sided argument. If patients shift from the public to the private sector, then resources do too. Public and private hospitals compete for the same limited supply of nurses and doctors. It is just as plausible to argue that the extra support for private hospitals, channelled through PHI, by drawing those scarce resources away from the public sector has increased pressure on public hospitals. If, as is possible, those extra services in private hospitals are for patients with lesser needs than those on public hospital waiting lists, then the subsidies for PHI have seriously misallocated scarce health resources. What public policy has delivered us is a perverse incentive to encourage queue jumping, and, given the way the Medicare Levy Surcharge is applied, the higher one’s income the stronger is that incentive.

PHI is a clumsy and expensive way to fund health care. When one analyses the health expenditures of OECD countries a clear relationship stands out – the greater the proportion of health funding which passes through PHI, the higher is that nation’s total health care costs, even though that higher expenditure produces no benefits in terms of morbidity or mortality. The USA is the outstanding example with health care costs now at about 17 percent of GDP.

Those countries which control their costs do so by a mix of a single insurer (usually a government insurer) and uninsurable out-of-pocket co-payments. Countries like the UK have very low patient co-payments, while Taiwan and Korea, countries with high savings, rely on high co-payments; universal insurance kicks in only once people have paid from their own pockets.

The trouble with PHI is that it carries all the moral hazard of public insurance but without the cost discipline that can be exercised by a strong single insurer. The notion HCF/BUPA/HBF can pay for it is the same as the notion Medicare can pay for it. Because insurance of all types suppresses price signals, PHI is not a market solution; rather it is simply an expensive way of doing what the taxation system does more equitably and efficiently – essentially a privatized tax. (In view of the recent recovery in Australia’s household savings there is a strong case for encouraging people, particularly the well-off, to pay more from their own pockets each time they need health care rather than being subsidized to buy insurance. Before the subsidies for PHI were introduced, about 25 percent of private hospital admissions were self-funded without insurance; that proportion has fallen to about 15 percent.)

Implicit in Roff’s arguments is the idea that without PHI we would have no private hospitals. But that is not so. Given the evidence that public and private hospitals have much the same cost structures, they should be able to compete for the same funding pool. In fact, on a small scale, such a model exists with the arrangements for war veterans: the Department of Veterans’ Affairs acts as the single funder, but purchases about 70 percent of its services from the private sector.

In fairness to Roff, he is not alone in thinking that private hospitals are necessarily dependent on PHI. It’s a way of thinking that has developed its own inertia among policymakers and advocates, and is standing in the way of health reform.

***
References to article by Keleher et al




[1] Productivity Commission, 2009. Public and Private Hospitals. Productivity Commission Research Report, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

[2] Private Health Insurance Administration Council 2011. http://www.phiac.gov.au/

[3] Segal L. 2003. Why support private health insurance in Australia? New Doctor, no 79, Winter, 10. ?Available: http://www.drs.org.au/new_doctor/79/index79.htm

[4] Smith J 2007. How fair is health spending? The distribution of tax subsidies for health in Australia. Discussion Paper no 43, The Australia Institute, Canberra; Deeble J. 2003. The Private Health Insurance Rebate, Report to State and Territory Health Ministers, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra.

[5] Ibid

[6] Department of Health and Ageing 2007 cited Livingstone 2011.

[7] Richardson J. 2003 Economics and health system reform. Presentation to Australian Health Care Summit, Canberra, 17-19 August; Duckett S. Private care and public waiting. Australian Health Review, 29 (1): 587-9.

Comments 2

  1. rechoboam says:

    “then doctors in particular will prefer to perform more of their work in the private system, reducing their availability to the public sector”

    You need to realise that this isn’t 1950 with wealthy specialists swanning into the public hospital for charity! Incomes in the public sector for medical specialists are very high. I don’t like the office politics in public hospitals so I wouldn’t want to work there. But if you take my gross billings and apportion amounts for annual leave, sick leave, conference leave, continuing education allowances, non-clinical time, then look at rent and salaries for my staff, I would take more home per hour in a public hospital than in my private practice. My costs are what they are based on practice expenses and wouldn’t change much if the rebate went; maybe 10%. I don’t think it would make much difference to the doctors but would be painful for the people just managing to hold onto insurance, there are surprisingly many pensioners in that boat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search by: Categories or tags