The Gillard Governmentâs squeeze on the private health insurance rebate has revived talk of Medicare Select.
That was the radical health scheme proposed by the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission , an ideaÂ forsaken by Labor, but not forgotten by big players in the private health sector.
Below,Â critics of Medicare Select, Â John Menadue and Ian McAuley,Â fellowsÂ of the Centre for Policy DevelopmentÂ Â Â share theirÂ distaste forÂ such a scheme.
What prompted their critique was an article by Rohan Mead, who chairs the Business Council of Australiaâs Healthy Australian Taskforce.
The Governmentâs decision to index the health insurance rebate to inflation came as Treasurer Wayne Swan acknowledged the increase in the rebateâs cost, expected to hit $8 billion a year in a decade, was Â âunsustainableâ.
Mr Mead argues that Medicare Select would provide incentives
for the system to be more focused on health outcomes and would drive
That argument does not persuade Menadue and McAuley.
More Middle Class Welfare
John Menadue and Ian McAuley write:
Independentâs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott have both called for a review of middleclass welfare in association with a GST rethink.
It is very clear that if the Government is to fund expensive fund expensive health, education and disability reforms it will need to clamp down on the public handouts to the middle class.
Last week Michael Smedes, an Assistant Statistician in the Bureau of Statistics, told the Economics Society of Australia that 12% of all government handouts in âsocial assistance benefitsâ goes to the wealthiest fifth of Australian households. The next highest
quintile got 11% of those benefits.
One of the key vehicles for this middle class welfare is the Private Health Insurance rebate which costs the taxpayer $3.5 billion per annum even after the recent tightening of the means test. Â Earlier this month, the private health insurance lobby was pressing for even more middle class welfare through âMedicare Selectâ.
Medicare Select was floated by the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission in 2009. The Commission suggested that Â all AustraliansÂ be enrolled in a government-funded plan, but with the opportunity for members of the community to move to a selected non-government plan.
Government funding would be diverted on a capitation basis to those âplansâ. The plans would be managed by private corporations or not-for-profits.
If the 45% of Australians who presently have PHI opted for Medicare Select, over $30 billion presently spent by the Commonwealth Government in health care would be channelled through high cost PHI.Â Good night Medicare.
Subsidised PHI takes us down a slippery and expensive route. Every country that has widespread PHI without price controls has high costs.
Because of the market power of providers there is little competition or efficiency in health care markets.
President Obama may achieve a more comprehensive health service in the US, but without further action it will be horrendously expensive.
In his Affordable Care Act, he can sponsor at least two nation-wide
health insurance plans to be operated under contract with the federal
government and offered to consumers in all states.
Hopefully these two plans will morph into a more robust âpublic optionâ. Only a public option like Medicare can start to wind back the havoc which private health insurance has brought to America.
The impact of subsidised private insurance:
Favours the wealthy. Eighty per cent of the wealthiest 20% of Australians have private health insurance. Only 25% of the poorest 20% of Australians have private health
insurance.The subsidy is really middle class welfare.
Increases usage of health services. Â As the Productivity Commission put it Â in 2005 âincreased levels of PHI have been associated with a marked increase in the number of
services performed and reimbursements of their servicesâ.
Favours financial intermediaries whose administrative costs,
including profit margin, are about three times that of Medicare. Â No wonder they keep raising premiums every year at more than the CPI.
Has not taken pressure off public hospitals and has allowed
private hospitals to attract highly professional staff away from public
hospitals with remuneration sometimes four to five times higher than
remuneration in public hospitals. Â This has been facilitated by gap insurance provided by PHI. This gap insurance has facilitated the largest increase in specialist fees in Australia in the last 25 years.
Is a dishonest and inefficient way of promoting so-called
âchoiceâ. The Royal Automobile Club doesnât need to enter into the crash repair
business to ensure consumer choice. We donât need subsidies to PHI firms to
promote private health delivery. Medical services funded by Medicare and
VeteransâAffairs are overwhelmingly provided by private doctors.
Weakens Medicareâs capacity to control cost and quality. In
2003, the OECD published a case study on PHI in Australia . It reported
â(private) funds do not exercise control over the quantity, quality and
appropriateness of care provided .. Private funds have not effectively engaged
in cost controlâ. By contrast, the Commonwealth, as the single buyer of
pharmaceuticals under the PBS has been remarkably successful in containing
We need less middle class welfare in health, not more. Â Medicare Select would destroy Medicare. The $3.5 billion annual subsidy Â that the PHI companies receive should be abolished and the funds transferred to aÂ comprehensive dental scheme.