Abbott; the GP co-payment and related backflip(s)

[mottrain]

No it doesn't.

This was also done by stealth.

The public didn't want it, so they slipped ammendments through as regulatory changes after the senate break

Yes it does. Do I really need to show examples like on petrol etc etc about how habits change.

 

[mottrain]

Only if the service gets more expensive.

It eats into practice margins and they will pass that on.

Most GPs bulk billing already won't whack anymore on than the $5 if required. It is a usual scare campaign.

 

[Windhover]

$25 isn't much at all to consult with a professional compared to other industries.

And if it is too much, hey, you can just die. No big deal. Not like not having an architect-designed house - ohhh the shame.

 

[Taylor]

And if it is too much, hey, you can just die. No big deal. Not like not having an architect-designed house - ohhh the shame.

They will still get the treatment. This country doesn't turn people away if they don't have insurance and they don't ask to settle accounts after an emergency visit.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Yes it does. Do I really need to show examples like on petrol etc etc about how habits change.

Yes you do and no it doesn't.

 

[Play by Numbers]

They will still get the treatment. This country doesn't turn people away if they don't have insurance and they don't ask to settle accounts after an emergency visit.

Health problems will get worse though, which will drive up costs.

Spend on preventative and early onset care, is exponentially more effective, than spend on treatment.

 

[Windhover]

They will still get the treatment. This country doesn't turn people away if they don't have insurance and they don't ask to settle accounts after an emergency visit.

Oh, right. Just when I thought there was supposed to be a price signal . . . .
(PS. What "this country" does or doesn't do, specifically in relation to "turning people away" when they have serious medical problems, is not a matter about which I feel capable of expressing any confidence any more. (Hamid Khazaei would have liked to say "hi" at this point.) But I sure wish what you said was true.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Most GPs bulk billing already won't whack anymore on than the $5 if required. It is a usual scare campaign.

They will have no choice. It isn't just the copayment changing.

 

[Play by Numbers]

$25 isn't much at all to consult with a professional compared to other industries.

It is for people on low incomes who have chronic problems.

 

[Taylor]

Health problems will get worse though, which will drive up costs.

Spend on preventative and early onset care, is exponentially more effective, than spend on treatment.

Where do you draw the line?

We have an obesity, drugs and alcohol problem.

 

[mottrain]

Yes you do and no it doesn't.

Bullshit it doesn't. The discounting cycle was shown to have huge effects on petrol sale. Same with the sudden increase in PT use when prices were astronomical 7 years ago.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Where do you draw the line?

We have an obesity, drugs and alcohol problem.

What line?

A reduction in early onset diagnosis and preventative care, will cause overall health costs especially amongst the elderly to balloon. Likewise it will have a negative impact on outcomes and life expectancy

People will literally die

 

[Play by Numbers]

Bullshit it doesn't. The discounting cycle was shown to have huge effects on petrol sale. Same with the sudden increase in PT use when prices were astronomical 7 years ago.

It doesn't. You have provided no evidence.

 

[Taylor]

What line?

A reduction in early onset diagnosis and preventative care, will cause overall health costs especially amongst the elderly to balloon. Likewise it will have a negative impact on outcomes and life expectancy

People will literally die

What if it stops people visiting a GP ten times to manage their condition and instead they are sent for the medicare covered resolution.

Heart issues are a good example. They can be treated with medication over a long period of time or they can be cured with a single procedure that costs far more initially.

 

[Play by Numbers]

What if it stops people visiting a GP ten times to manage their condition and instead they are sent for the medicare covered resolution.

Heart issues are a good example. They can be treated with medication over a long period of time or they can be cured with a single procedure that costs far more initially.

The flow on effect is a huge concern.

Japan had to change the way their healthcare system functioned, due to the charge gap between hospitals and clinics.

The problem we face is that more people will go to emergency rooms, therefore taxing hospital resources and preventing timely care of those most in need.

Like I said, it's a policy that will lead to increased mortality

 

[Taylor]

The flow on effect is a huge concern.

Japan had to change the way their healthcare system functioned, due to the charge gap between hospitals and clinics.

The problem we face is that more people will go to emergency rooms, therefore taxing hospital resources and preventing timely care of those most in need.

Like I said, it's a policy that will lead to increased mortality

What if hospitals have the GP clinics in them? - You need more doctors.

The AMA don't want more doctors trained because, in their view, it will compromise the training of the current ones because there aren't enough training places in hospitals for them. They literally say that there aren't enough places for doctors in hospitals.

What is causing a greater reduction in the health care industry's ability to distribute professional care?

 

[Play by Numbers]

What if hospitals have the GP clinics in them? - You need more doctors.

The AMA don't want more doctors trained because, in their view, it will compromise the training of the current ones because there aren't enough training places in hospitals for them. They literally say that there aren't enough places for doctors in hospitals.

What is causing a greater reduction in the health care industry's ability to distribute professional care?

It isn't about location, it's about cost differential.

Also, more doctors isn't the answer to that problem. We will risk big time slow downs in emergency department and taxing hospital resources. Like I said, this is bad policy.

 

[Taylor]

It isn't about location, it's about cost differential.

Also, more doctors isn't the answer to that problem. We will risk big time slow downs in emergency department and taxing hospital resources. Like I said, this is bad policy.

Why won't more doctors fix the problem? It will increase supply, that reduces the cost of the medical treatment. Is the problem that doctors don't want too much competition for paycheques?

If a doctor was paid $1000 a week we would get very good health care, because nobody works 16 hour shifts without a passion for it.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Why won't more doctors fix the problem? It will increase supply, that reduces the cost of the medical treatment. Is the problem that doctors don't want too much competition for paycheques?

If a doctor was paid $1000 a week we would get very good health care, because nobody works 16 hour shifts without a passion for it.

Doctors are only one bottleneck to supply.

You need more beds, so bigger hospitals, which means higher overheads, also more administrative staff. A degree of automation may be required, to increase efficiency which is another large cost in the mid term.

Basically, to manage this there would need to be a large corresponding spend, which won't happen at the fed level.

So either this forces the states to ask for increased GST and then greater spending on hospitals, or is more likely the case we see a spike in mortality.

 

[Gus Poyet]

It is for people on low incomes who have chronic problems.

What about the parasites that can afford it but still moan about having to pay it.

Must be a fair few of them in any thread on here discussing such matters.

 

[Taylor]

Doctors are only one bottleneck to supply.

You need more beds, so bigger hospitals, which means higher overheads, also more administrative staff. A degree of automation may be required, to increase efficiency which is another large cost in the mid term.

Basically, to manage this there would need to be a large corresponding spend, which won't happen at the fed level.

So either this forces the states to ask for increased GST and then greater spending on hospitals, or is more likely the case we see a spike in mortality.

You can't bring up hospital beds if we are talking about a GP payment.

If there are more doctors they can consult out of offices and the GP problem is gone. Nobody extra gets admitted that wouldn't be admitted anyway.

 

[Power Raid]

First, it will be as high as 25$.

Secondly, out of pocket costs will increase dramatically due to a freeze on the rebate.

So you're not against the policy but a n issue that may or may not eventuate

 

[Power Raid]

Ignore them.

Allowing insurance companies to manage clinics is a huge mistake

I'm not sure if ignoring a major player is sensible

but each to their own

 

[Play by Numbers]

I'm not sure if ignoring a major player is sensible

but each to their own

It's not a two choice situation.

You can ignore the desires of insurers, without ignoring their influence, or impact.

 

[Play by Numbers]

So you're not against the policy but a n issue that may or may not eventuate

No, I am against the policy.