THE Australian Medical Association has released its alternative to the federal government’s controversial $7 Medicare co-payment plan that would protect pensioners and children, but many have been quick to slam the new plan.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The old saying “you can put lipstick on a pig ...” comes to mind – critics of the AMA proposal arguing it’s still a watered-down co-payment that still undermines Australia’s universal healthcare system.
Under the AMA plan, a minimum $6.15 co-payment would apply to all patients but the government would pay for concession card holders and people under 16, and there would also be no obligation on GPs to charge the
co-payment for Medicare-funded chronic disease services, health assessments and mental health items. Residential aged-care visits and home visits would also be excluded.
The AMA opposes the government’s proposed $5 cut in the Medicare rebate for GP services, pathology and diagnostic imaging, while the government defends that move, saying it would put the $5 into a new medical research fund, leaving $2 of the co-payment to go to the doctor.
Under the AMA’s proposal, the the $6.15 would go back to the doctor, prompting critics to accuse the AMA of just trying to line the pockets of doctors.
This argument will go back and forth in coming weeks as the government tries desperately to convince the senate of the virtues of its plan, or is forced into some kind of amendment in a last-ditch attempt to get it through a hostile upper house.
But is it all just a futile exercise in the end? Is it yet another flawed proposal for fixing a system that is buckling under the pressure and needs far more help than just a little tinkering around the edges?
Universal health care has been a hallmark of Australian society for decades, but with a relatively small population, an ageing population and shrinking tax base – and a concentration of medical professionals in metropolitan centres to the detriment of regional areas – some serious questions need to be asked.
The system put in place decades ago was designed according to the needs and structures at that time, but times have changed and the face of healthcare is no different.
Something like a co-payment may be a quick fix to the government’s immediate fiscal concerns, but is it a solution for the long-term? Does it address the real problems plaguing our nation’s healthcare system?
It’s time to examine this ailing system from the ground up and ask the people responsible for delivering these services, as well as the users, just what the priorities are and how they can be better delivered.
The health of the nation depends on it.
