Private health insurance rebate to deliver yet more savings for Government

Parliament house flag post

Private health insurance rebate to deliver yet more savings for Government

Posted 23/10/2012 by Amanda Biggs

The Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) included yet more changes to private health insurance rebate (PHIR) arrangements, on top of those recently implemented. These are expected to deliver savings of $1.09 billion over three years which will be used to offset the cost of the Dental Health Reform package announced in August this year.

Instead of being automatically inked to premium increases, the level of the PHIR will be based on an indexation arrangement. From April 2013, the rebate amount will be indexed to either movement in the consumer price index (CPI) or the percentage increase in premiums for private hospital cover, whichever is the lower figure. In addition, the private health insurance rebate will be removed from the Lifetime Health Cover (LHC) loading on premiums which applies when people delay taking out private health insurance until after their 31st birthday.

Currently, the amount of rebate for private hospital cover is calculated based on the amount of the premium charged to the consumer by the health insurer. Since changes to the PHIR came into effect in July 2012, the rebate is also means-tested. Those on lower incomes receive a higher rebate compared to those on higher incomes. Higher rebates also apply to those in older age brackets who are also on lower incomes.

However, the precise amount of the rebate varies with the cost of the premium charged. Premiums for private hospital cover vary depending on the insurer and the type of product. The value of the rebate is thus currently linked to the cost of the premium, with higher premiums attracting a higher rebate amount.

As explained in this Parliamentary Library paper, each year private health insurers apply to the Government for approval to increase the premiums they charge for private health cover. In April each year the Government announces the premium increases it has approved for the year ahead, and the average premium increase across the industry.

Under the new arrangements to apply after April 2014, if the health insurance premium increase approved by the Government is higher than the CPI, the rebate amount will be calculated based on the lower CPI figure.

Historically, increases to private health insurance premiums have tracked well above CPI levels. This year, for example, the Government approved an average premium increase of 5.06 per cent. While the lowest in four years it is still well above the budget forecast of the CPI increase which is 3.25 per cent for 2012–13 (Budget Paper no. 1, Statement 2: Table 1). The chart below compares premium increases and CPI levels since 2002.

Figure 1: Comparison between annual average percentage increases in private health insurance premiums and the CPI (June quarter)
Source: Parliamentary Library

Currently, a premium increase of 6 per cent on a policy that previously cost $1800 would yield a rebate of $572.40, if the consumer is eligible for the 30 per cent rebate. But the amount of the rebate would be $15 less if this year’s forecast CPI figure is instead applied to the calculation.
If the CPI continues to track at lower levels than rises in health insurance premiums, over time the amount of the rebate liability the Government will incur will decline, leading to rebate savings. But this will also mean an erosion in the value of the rebate for consumers.
It is not immediately clear how this measure will be implemented, although it will require legislative changes. The Treasurer did not specify for example, whether an individual health insurer’s premium increases would be compared with the CPI, or if the average premium increase approved across the industry would be the comparator. Nor is it clear which CPI figure would be used, that of the past year or the forecast CPI.
The Government may be hoping that this move will also prompt private health insurers to further limit their future premium increases. Faced with the prospect of their members receiving lower rebates, health insurers may seek to maintain value for their members by applying for lower premium increases each year. But as this previous Flagpost noted, health insurers have limited scope to control the cost of their premiums. Many of the drivers of higher health costs—such as an ageing population, more expensive medical technologies and increased prevalence of chronic diseases— are outside their direct control. A range of regulatory controls on portability and community rating also limit their capacity to control claim costs.
A further issue is that if CPI increases remain low, the financial incentive for the Government to seek lower premium increases will diminish over time. By removing the automatic link between the rebate amount and the actual premium charged, the role of the premium approval process becomes less critical to limiting the Government’s future rebate liability costs. Some in the industry have indicated they welcome this as less government interference in the premium setting process.
The second measure will reduce the rebate paid to people who incur a loading on their health insurance premiums. Under Lifetime Health Cover (LHC) arrangements, if a person delays purchasing private cover until after their 30th birthday, they incur a two per cent loading on their premium for each year they delay purchasing cover. This is meant to discourage the delayed purchase of private cover. Currently, if a person delays purchasing cover until they are 40 they incur a 20 per cent loading on top of their premium. But the amount of their rebate also rises by 20 per cent, potentially offsetting this financial disincentive. Some 1.05 million people (or 13.8 per cent of those covered) currently have a LHC loading on their premiums according to the latest data from the Private Health Insurance Administration Council.

Comments

  • 21/01/2014 2:31 PM
    Amanda Biggs said:

    Chris Thanks for your comment. The government has now introduced legislation to enact this measure. You can read about the legislation in this Bills Digest (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd123). The private health insurance rebate is one of the fastest growing areas of government expenditure, rising faster than CPI, so you can see why the government might want to constrain its cost. The rebate cost taxpayers over $5.3 billion last financial year (2011-12). Whether adjustments to the rebate would prompt an exodus from private health insurance, and thus dismantle the health system, is debatable. Previous adjustments such as means-testing the rebate, did not cause membership to collapse as many predicted, in fact membership grew. As well as the rebate, two other policy levers introduced by the Howard Government act to encourage private health insurance: Lifetime Health cover and the Medicare levy surcharge. Of these three measures, LHC has been mainly credited with driving private health insurance membership (the ‘Run for cover’ campaign), as seen in this graph from the industry regulator.(http://phiac.gov.au/industry/industry-statistics/statistical-trends/). It is true that, increasingly, consumers are expected to carry more of the burden of the cost of private health insurance, and there is probably a debate to be had about growing out of pocket costs. But health insurers are also endeavouring to offer more innovative, attractive products to ensure consumers continue to feel they gain value from having private health insurance. With demand for membership continuing to grow and key policy levers like LHC encouraging uptake, predictions that private health insurance is facing collapse would appear premature at this stage.

  • 21/01/2014 2:31 PM
    Chris said:

    Hi Amanda, This is an old article but a very informative one.Having read it though, I am left feeling that if this were to be implemented in full and maintained, it would essentially amount to the dismantling of the health care system as we know it. Annual differences of between 3% and 4% compounded between the health premium increase and the broader CPI measure will make health care significantly less affordable to a great many in even a realtively short time. Can you comment on this? Regards, Chris


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Indigenous Australians Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment taxation Sport illicit drugs Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force welfare policy Asia income management Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States higher education people trafficking school education aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA United Nations federal budget health financing emissions trading gambling Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Industrial Relations dental health National Disability Insurance Scheme forced labour Senate election results Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service International Women's Day corruption Fair Work Act child protection people smuggling debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure ALP New Zealand Australian Crime Commission Newstart Parenting Payment 43rd Parliament slavery by-election political parties Census constitution High Court skilled migration voting Federal Court terrorist groups Afghanistan Higher Education Loan Program HECS youth Aviation environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs poker machines doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers leadership United Kingdom UK Parliament Electoral reform politics banking firearms public policy mental health China ADRV terrorism social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation governance public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing paid parental leave European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas planning United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing election timetable citizenship Productivity asylum seekers early childhood education Canada Population Financial sector national security fuel violence against women domestic violence disability employment Tasmania integrity science research and development Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia accountability housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation family assistance expertise Senators and Members climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets health reform Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration health system Australia Greens money laundering servitude Special Rapporteur Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries social citizenship China; Economic policy; Southeast Asia; Africa housing Speaker; House of Representatives; Parliament Defence High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days baby bonus DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking federal election 2010 workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing Hung Parliament political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions

Show all
Show less
Back to top