黑料吃瓜群网

If the Abbott Government wishes to get more bang for the buck out of health spending, there are better options than slapping a $7 co-payment on patients, the Consumers Health Forum says.
鈥淏efore the Senate votes on the co-payment issue, Consumers Health Forum听urges senators to consider practical alternatives which would avoid the stated need for a co-payment by saving the health system money and improving health outcomes,鈥� the Chief Executive Officer Adam Stankevicius said.
鈥淔or instance, Australia spends an estimated $3 billion a year on 600,000 public hospital admissions that could be avoided through effective care in the community, according to figures given in a Productivity Commission report.
鈥淩eining in costly but unjustified procedures, reducing hospital-acquired infections, improving the distribution of doctors, and stronger links between hospital and community care are all measures that would provide win-win outcomes for patients and taxpayers.
鈥淧ersuasive arguments for these options were made in the Consumers Health Forum鈥檚听Health Voices听journal earlier this year.听 It published the views of experts on how to get a better bang for the buck.听 See听
鈥淲hat several of these articles show is that rather than imposing cost barriers to see GPs, Australia should be encouraging a better connected primary care system to improve overall care of the swelling numbers of Australians with chronic conditions like diabetes.
鈥淲e urge the Health Minister, Peter Dutton, to seek a comprehensive solution to the Government鈥檚 concerns about rising health costs, such as a Productivity Commission inquiry into private health insurance,听a review of futile and unproven services being funded through Medicare, and reducing unplanned hospital visits by supporting GPs to provide comprehensive care for people who have multiple conditions such as diabetes and heart disease.
鈥淎 Senate vote in favour of the Medicare co-payment is widely opposed and would defy the available evidence supporting straightforward access to medical care.
鈥淲e point the Palmer United Party and all senators to the persuasive research and opinions the Consumers Health Forum听has published, including a research paper which finds that the available evidence indicates that a co-payment would discourage needy people from seeing the doctor but would not generate savings overall.听 See听
听鈥淭he co-payment would set back Australia鈥檚 health system, imposing a cost barrier at the entry points to medical care:听 GPs, diagnostic services and medicines.听 It junks the Medicare principle of universal access to primary health care and is likely to result in more patients going untreated and ultimately higher hospital bills.
鈥淭he Consumers Health Forum听fears that the Government is approaching the health issue from a provider perspective and failing to base the starting point for any changes on what is best for the patient and consumer.
鈥淭he Government鈥檚 approach on the co-payment now appears to rely on the Australian Medical Association to find a solution to the co-payment impasse.听 While the AMA has made cogent arguments challenging the co-payment, the fact remains that its first priority will be to promote the welfare of doctors.
鈥淕iven the months that have passed with the issue unresolved, we urge the Government to look again at the evidence and seek a more representative approach to this issue of Medicare costs.鈥�