Related Articles

4 Comments

  1. 1

    lesley barclay

    Excellent commentary- thank you!
    Lesley Barclay

    Reply
  2. 2

    Delia

    An excellent article. Very few up-front quotes on private healthcare are released out by private doctors. Most private patients are given the bill on their way out of their hospital or clinic. This behaviour would not be tolerated from any other private industry. Australia now has the third highest medical costs, behind Switzerland and the USA.

    There is no website allowing patients to rate the different qualities or costs of private hospitals. The NIB private health fund failed to get their http://www.whitecoat.com.au website to include information on doctors and hospitals. Private Healthcare Australia failed to get their nation wide report into the infection rates across 600 private hospitals published http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-insurers-say-some-private-hospitals-offer-costly-and-sub-standard-care/story-fneuzlbd-1226593904242. Once again, this behaviour would not be tolerated about any other private industry. Australia has extremely high rates of hospital errors.

    Private doctors are not just an overpriced and ineffective way to deliver health care. They also actively block essential information about cost and quality of their services to their patients and the tax payers, who fund the private insurance tax rebate. No wonder Warren Buffet called private health are the tape worm of the American economy.

    http://www.wikihospitals.co.uk

    Reply
  3. 3

    bushby jane

    ‘Co-payment’ is a tricky way of saying that they are reducing imbursements to GPs.
    Peter Dutton continues to contradict himself saying that he wants private health cos to be involved at a primary level to encourage preventative measures against conditions such as diabetes, except that his govt has cut back funding for such.

    Reply
  4. 4

    Monicas Wicked Stepmother

    The co-payment will achieve the opposite of its intended purpose (as defined by the Commission of Audit) to reduce frequent GP appointments. Consider a person on a pension card. Under the co-payment proposal, that person would have to pay the co-payment for the first ten visits in a year (calendar or financial), with all subsequent visits requiring no co-payment. So what incentive is there, after paying $70 for ten visits, to not visit the GP? Absolutely none. If the Government wanted to use the co-payment to stop people seeing their GP too often, then the co-payment should be on all visits AFTER a reasonable number (probably more than 10, considering some people need scripts every 28 days, i.e. 13 visits per year). Of course, the Government would get much less money that way.

    Reply

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.

© 2015 – 2019 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey