 |
Bills Digest No. 37 2002-03
Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill 2002
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced
and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have
any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine
the subsequent official status of the Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Health Care
(Appropriation) Amendment Bill 2002
Date Introduced:
29 August 2002
House:
House of Representatives
Portfolio:
Health and Ageing
Commencement:
On Royal Assent
Purpose
This Bill seeks to introduce two
changes to the Health Care (Appropriation) Act 1998 (‘the Act’).
The first proposed change will increase the maximum amount of financial
assistance that the Minister for Health and Ageing may grant to the States
and Territories under the Australian Health Care Agreements. The second
proposed change will require the Minister for Health and Ageing to table
a statement of the amount of financial assistance granted under the new
maximum payment level.
The Australian Health Care Agreements (AHCAs) are the
main funding agreements between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories
for health care. It is primarily through these Agreements that the Commonwealth
provides funding for public hospitals. In the financial year ending 2001-2002,
the Federal Government paid approximately $6 678 million to the States
and Territories under the ACHAs. The Act provides the legislative basis
for grants of financial assistance under the 1998-2003 AHCAs, and includes
a provision that the total grants must not exceed $29 633 056 000.
The 1998-2003 AHCAs explicitly provide for the adjustment
of funding levels, if private health insurance membership increases or
decreases beyond a certain threshold.(1) This provision allows
the Commonwealth to ‘claw back’ health care funding from the States and
Territories if private health insurance membership increases above a certain
threshold. This provision should be seen in the context of the Federal
Government’s financial investment in increasing private health insurance
membership. One of the key selling points utilised by the Federal Governments
advertising campaign for private health insurance and justification of
the cost of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate is that any
increase in private health insurance membership would lead to a corresponding
decrease in the pressures on public hospitals. In particular, it was argued
that increasing private health insurance membership would shorten public
hospital waiting lists.(2)
In his Second Reading Speech on this Bill the Minister
for Ageing, Kevin Andrews MP, stated that the original funding ceiling
specified in the Act will be reached in early 2003.(3). This
is the result of the Federal Government’s decision not to ‘claw back’
any funding in recognition of increases in private health insurance coverage,
combined with a range of other health care funding decisions (including
indexation to the Wage Cost Index No. 1 and additional funding offered
to the States and Territories in 1998).(4) Consequently, the
Bill seeks to increase this ceiling in order to allow the Commonwealth
to discharge its financial responsibilities to the States and Territories
under the 1998-2003 AHCAs.
In July 2001 the then Federal Minister for Health and
Ageing, Dr Michael Wooldridge MP, stated that with an increase of almost
15 per cent in private health insurance the Federal Government was entitled
to reduce funding to the States and Territories under the AHCAs by approximately
$3 billion.(5) The decision not to do so was presented as a
mechanism for improving public hospital funding.(6) However,
the failure of the Federal Government to exercise its entitlement under
the AHCAs to ‘claw back’ these funds has protected from scrutiny its claim
that an increase in private health insurance membership would ease pressure
on public hospitals.
Little information has been provided by the Federal Government
on the proposed savings that would potentially accrue to public hospitals
from the increase in private health insurance membership.(7)
However, in August 2000 Dr Wooldridge stated that:
… up to 400,000 extra procedures will be done as
the result of nearly two million people coming into private health
insurance. These procedures will either be done in private hospitals,
which means that that frees up a bed in a public hospital, or be done
as a private patient in a public hospital, which will provide a new
source of revenue to the public hospitals themselves.(8)
There is, however, little concrete evidence to support
the claim that increased private health insurance membership will or has
eased pressure on public hospitals waiting lists. The most recent Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report on public hospital waiting
lists indicates that overall there has not been a significant change in
waiting times for elective surgery over the past 2 years.(9)
Although there has been 12 per cent increase in private hospital admissions,
there has been only a 0.1 per cent decrease in public hospital admissions.(10)
Russell Schneider from the Private Health Insurance Association has claimed
this decrease as a ‘win’ for the Government’s private health insurance
measures. (11)The Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Kay
Patterson, has argued that it will not be until late in 2003 that any
significant change will be apparent.(12)
The reasons why increased private health insurance membership
is not leading to substantial decreases in public hospital waiting lists
are varied. However, they include the following observations:
- Younger, healthier people joining private health insurance has fuelled
the increase in membership. These people are not high users of the public
hospital system, and consequently their membership of private health
insurance will have had a minimum effect on public hospital waiting
lists for elective surgery
- The sorts of procedures that are undertaken in public and private
hospitals are different, with public hospitals generally doing more
complex procedures, and
- A large majority of new memberships took out private health insurance
packages with ‘front-end deductibles.’ ‘Front-end deductibles’ usually
require the contributor to pay a large up-front payment towards the
cost of being treated as a private patient (in either a private or public
hospital). This large payment discourages people from utilising their
private health insurance, and consequently they are likely to choose
to be treated in a public hospital as a public patient.(13)
Item 1 of Schedule 1 amends subsection 4(3)
of the Act, to increase the total amount of financial assistance the
Minister may grant from $29 655 056 000 to $31 800 000,000.
Item 2 of Schedule 1 inserts proposed subsection
4(5), to expand the reporting responsibilities of the Minister
under the Act. Under proposed subsection 4(5) the Minister for
Health and Ageing will be required to present to each House of Parliament
as soon as practicable after 30 June 2003 a statement of the total amount
of financial assistance paid under section 4 of the Act.
- The 1993-1998 Medicare Agreements (the Medicare Agreements were renamed
the Australian Health Care Agreements in 1998) also contained a clause
regarding private health insurance that required the Commonwealth to
review funding under that Agreement if private health insurance declined
by more than 2 per cent. Membership of private health insurance did
fall enough to invoke this provision and two reviews of funding took
place. Although the States argued that the decline placed added pressure
on the public hospital system, the Commonwealth provided no extra funding.
The important distinction between the 1993-1998 and 1998-2003 Agreements
is that rather than a commitment to ‘review’ funding in relation to
a change in private health insurance, clause 50 of the 1998-2003 Agreements
makes an explicit provision to vary funding if private health insurance
rates change.
- For an analysis of the messages in the Commonwealth Government’s advertising
of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate see Stacy Carter
& Simon Chapman, ‘John’s $12 tonic: Press coverage of the government’s
selling of a private health insurance rebate, Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(3),2001, pp. 265–271
- Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill 2002, Second Reading Speech,
Kevin Andrews MP, House of Representatives, Debates, 29
August 2002, p. 6111.
- Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2.
- Dr. Michael Wooldridge, ‘Coalition delivers record public hospital
funding,’ Media Release, 1 July 2001. This figure was also quoted in
the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, Government response
to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report on Public
Hospital Funding: Healing our Hospitals, September 2001.
- See also Senator the Hon Kay Patterson, ‘Private Health Insurance
relieves pressure on Victoria’s Public Hospitals,’ Media Release, 27
February 2002.
- The Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, MP, House of Representatives, Hansard,
20 August 2001: 29795.
- The Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, MP Hansard, 29 August 2000:
19515.
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Hospital Statistics
2000-01, AIHW, Canberra. 2002.
- ibid.
- Mark Metherell, ‘$2bn Private health push barely dents waiting lists,’
Sydney Morning Herald, 29 June 2002.
- ibid
- Healthcover, 'A duel with statistics that looked more like apples
and oranges, Debate: "that the government private health insurance strategy
is an inefficient way of helping public hospitals"', Healthcover,
December 2001-Jan 2002: 53–59.
Amanda Elliot
24 September 2002
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and
Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure
that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information
publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are
those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and
Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues
contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and
for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal
opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary
or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents
with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the
public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2002
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act
1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval
systems, without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary Library,
other than by Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their
official duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2002.

|
 |