Political Futures: Will Conservative Global Middle Powers Go…

By Denis Bright National elections in Germany and Australia in 2025 will test…

Does the Treasurer have a god complex or…

By Dale Webster THE Senate inquiry into regional bank closures, which delivered its…

Educating Australian Voters for True Democracy

By Denis Hay Description Explore how educating Australian voters can reform the two-party system…

Zionism, Imperialism and conflict in the Middle East

As we are constantly bombarded by the ongoing conflict in Gaza and…

Sado-populism

Every time a fascist-flirting regime is defeated in an election, more column…

A nation on the move: New tool tracks…

Media Release: The Climate Council Millions of Australian homes and businesses are driving…

Thank You for Emitting: The Hypocrisies of COP29

COP29 was always going to be memorable, for no other reason than…

ALP vs LNP: Similarities, Differences

By Denis Hay Title ALP vs LNP: Similarities, Differences, and Policy Impacts on…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: $7 Co-Payment

If Only Julia Had Introduced A Carbon “Price Signal”, It Would Have All Been OK!

TONY ABBOTT: “This is an important reform. It is important to have some modest price signals in the system.”

 

PETER DUTTON: “…we will make Medicare sustainable, we will get money into the Medical Research Future Fund and we will make sure that we have this sustainability which will include a price signal.”

 

Now I could probably find another dozen quotes about the current government’s determination for a price signal, but you get the general idea from those above.

Price Signal. That’s the funny thing about words, while “West-Side Story” let me know that when you said Maria loudly there was music playing, but when you said it soft(ly), it was almost like praying, I suddenly realised earlier today, that I didn’t really know what a price signal was. Yes, I know what a price is, and I know what a signal is, but what does it mean when you put them together? When they say it softly there’s music playing, but it doesn’t sound like any song I know the words to. Similarly, when they say it loudly, it’s almost like braying.

So, because I’m a man who likes to research but – like Greg Hunt – doesn’t have time to read more than a few words, I looked it up on Wikipedia:

A price signal is information conveyed, to consumers and producers, via the price charged for a product or service, thus providing a signal to increase supply and/or decrease demand for the priced item.

So there you have it. The $7 co-payment – not a tax, because the Liberals don’t believe in taxation – and it’s bastard child the $5 reduction in doctor rebates is just something to provide information to increase and/or decrease demand for medical services.

Mm, I’m trying to get my head around that. So does that mean if the price signal shows more people are using the doctor then they’ll increase the supply? Or reduce the demand? Or both?

Perhaps some interviewer would like to ask our Health Minister, Mr Whatisname to explain how the price signal aspect of the non-co-payment will work in practice. I’d be interested to hear his answer.

And I can’t help but think that Julia Gillard should have called the Carbon “Tax” a Carbon Price Signal. Oh wait, I seem to remember the rest of that quote that the Liberals were so fond of.

“’There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let me be clear: I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme.’’

Yep, if only she’d said she’d be putting a “price signal” on carbon, the Liberals would’ve had no problem with it.

Wikipedia does have more information about price signals:

Free PRICE SYSTEM

Main article: Free price system

For example, in a free price system, rising prices may indicate a decrease of supply or an increase in demand. Regardless of the underlying reason—and without the consumer needing to know the cause—the price increase communicates the notion that consumer demand (at this new, higher price) should recede or that supplies should increase. Consumers that do continue to purchase the product at the higher price ostensibly give the product a higher marginal utility. This results in a natural market correction, according to the Austrian theory of catallactics.

Fixed price system

Main article: Fixed price system

In a fixed price system where prices are set by government, price signals may not be as reliable as indicators of shortages, surpluses, or consumer preferences according to opponents of planned economies. These artificial prices may create shortages and surpluses that would not occur under a free price system.

So, let me get this straight. If the government is setting the price, price signals won’t be reliable as indicators of shortages or surpluses. And doesn’t the government set the prices in relation to Medicare?

Like I said before, I’d really like some interviewer to ask the next Abbott minister to use the phrase “price signal”, what the term actually means. It could be as entertaining as listening to George Brandis explain metadata. Or even why human rights are all very well, but they shouldn’t apply to a terrorist like David Hicks… or any member of a union because they’re all practically terrorists anyway…

GP Co-Payment: Policy Analysis

Even Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey seem confused about their Great. Big. New. Tax on doctor’s visits, as announced in their horror budget two weeks ago. It’s still not clear exactly how this policy will be applied and who it will be applied to. While the government who introduced the tax go back to the drawing board to try to work out how it actually works, I thought it might be useful to do some policy analysis of my own, by interviewing my brother-in-law. I know this is a radical idea and one Abbott and his government clearly haven’t considered, but let’s throw in some facts from an expert. My brother-in-law can provide these facts in an expert manner since he is a GP:

Peter Dutton has said he decided the government should introduce the Medicare co-payment while visiting his doctor. Dutton explained that people should contribute to visits to a GP because this would make the health care system more financially sustainable. This doesn’t strike me as a consultative policy analysis process. If Dutton had chosen to investigate the effect of this policy in a more consultative way, who should he have spoken to?

Changes to the Medicare architecture should be undertaken through liaison between the Department of Health, the AMA [Australian Medical Association], the College of General Practice and State Health Departments.

As a practicing GP, what is your opinion of the Abbott government’s proposed Medicare $7 GP co-payment policy?

The proposed Medicare co-payment and its associated changes to Medicare have the potential to be very destructive to patient care for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it will deter people from discussing minor symptoms that they have with their GP, which often are a warning sign of more serious illness. This can lead to patients presenting with more advanced or severe disease, which may ultimately present a higher cost burden for the government.

Secondly, the capacity for general practices to be flexible in their billing to patients with limited financial resources is significantly reduced under the proposed changes.

Thirdly, hospital emergency departments will see a major increase in the volume of people with minor ailments presenting for care. Already, approximately 30% of patients presenting to an emergency department are non-urgent or semi-urgent conditions that could be managed in a GP setting. I suspect this proportion will increase significantly after the introduction of the co-payment.

Finally, the co-payment may influence doctors to manage their patients in a less-than-ideal manner, as GP’s may try to protect their patient from additional fees. For example, the GP may not undertake a planned review of an infected wound the next day to see if the antibiotics are helping. Or the GP may defer referring the patient for pathology tests that might have picked up the serious electrolyte abnormality. There is a significant potential for the quality of care to deteriorate.

What influence will the $7 Medicare GP co-payment have on the total price GPs will need to charge their patients rather than bulk-billing? Will there be an administration fee charged on top of the $7 fee?

This will vary depending on the way the practice currently bills. Some practices charge all patients a fee with a gap. The proposed Medicare changes will reduce the amount that patients get as a rebate and they will therefore have a larger gap (however, the co-payment per-se won’t be paid).

It is practices that bulk-bill patients who will see the most impact. For example, a general practitioner that chooses to bulk-bill a pensioner for a standard consult will have a 24% decrease in their income for that patient, and if they charge the co-payment without an additional fee on top, then their income will drop by 11%.

For example, here is the current situation where a standard consult for a pensioner is conducted:

Medicare Rebate ($36.30) + bulk-billing incentive ($6.60) = $42.90

And here are the proposed changes:

If no co-payment is charged then total income for consult is:

Medicare rebate ($31.30) = $31.30

If co-payment is charged:

Medicare rebate ($31.30) and low-gap incentive ($6.60) and co-payment ($2.00) = $39.90

As a general practitioner who runs a small business, these reductions in income have the potential to make the business unviable. My practice is considering its options but it is likely that we will simply have to charge concessional patients a gap of approximately $11 to maintain business viability (this will essentially keep our income stable). We are exploring other options such as reducing the duration of consults from 15 minutes to 12 minutes or reducing the number of supporting staff, but these options all have a negative impact on patient care.

What types of patients will this co-payment affect the most? Do you expect certain types of patients to visit their doctor less often?

This will have the most impact on patients who have chronic illness. In particular; the elderly, those with mental illness, diabetes, high blood pressure and children with recurrent infections. The impact will depend on how the medical profession and medical practices change their fee structure after the changes are introduced. It is unclear whether the large bulk-billing organisations such as Primary Health Care will continue to bulk-bill or whether they will charge the co-payment. I suspect that the overall impact of these changes will be much more severe than expected as many general practices like mine will change from conducting ‘mixed-billing’ (bulk-billing concessional patients and charging gap for non-concessional patients) to conducting private (gap) billing for all patients.

What types of illnesses and conditions will people suffer from more severely if they don’t see their GP as often?

Chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension, asthma, heart disease and those with mental illness are likely to be the hardest hit.

I also expect that some diseases will be picked up later. For example, a woman with a minor breast symptom who delays having it checked and it ultimately is found to be a breast cancer.

Another example is that if a patient reports an unusual mole early and it is excised and found to be an early melanoma, there is very little risk of the cancer spreading and cure is usual. However, if the melanoma is diagnosed after spreading, it is generally regarded as incurable and the costs of newer chemotherapies for melanoma are astronomical in comparison.

What affect do you think the GP co-payments will have on the overall health of the community and on the health budget bottom line?

There is likely to be a negative effect on general health in the community. I suspect that we will see some diseases that have been declining in severity, such as heart attacks or advanced breast cancer, either plateau or even increase in frequency.

I suspect the health budget will largely be unchanged, as while there will be a reduced number of general practice consultations and pathology/imaging rebates, there will be an increase in the number of more advanced diseases. There will probably be some cost-shifting as the more advanced cancers and heart disease will be cared for through the hospital system, whereas there will be less costs coming from general practice.

Do you think it was responsible of the Abbott government to use the revenue from the GP co-payment to build a future fund to fund scientific health research?

Increased funding for research is sorely needed. If there is a co-payment then I would support its proceeds going to research, however, I believe this funding should go to non-corporate research such as through the CSIRO or universities. I am concerned that corporate grants will be given for research by pharmaceutical companies that do not need government support.

The funding to the states for the provision of hospital care should also be increased if the co-payment is introduced as the further demand will outstrip already limited services in our public hospitals.

So there we have it. Not only some much needed facts, but clear analysis that shows the government haven’t thought through this policy. Either that, or they have and they don’t care about the detrimental impacts on our community. Sigh.

[twitter-follow screen_name=’Vic_Rollison’ show_count=’yes’]