Page 671 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I really cannot understand why the ACT apparently argued against the position adopted by these States. Why is the Minister for Health so set against discussions about how we can increase the contribution made by private health insurance to our health system?
Mr Berry: I will tell you in a minute.
MRS CARNELL: I am sure you will. I would have expected that the Minister would address this particular issue, the real bone of contention at the conference, in his statement. Perhaps the Minister should have been a little bit more informative, as always. Why is it that the Minister is so opposed to non-government provision of health? What philosophical gem can the Minister offer which would explain why he is such a conservative? Private insurance has the potential to make some very important improvements in our health system. It would complement, not detract from, the Medicare system.
I notice that the Minister for Health suggested in his statement that developing input into the national database set, amongst other things, is something that is proceeding quickly in the ACT. This is very hard to believe, given the speed at which we have implemented DRGs in our health system. We are really dragging the chain badly in this area.
Another important issue not mentioned by Mr Berry was the question of aged care services. Perhaps Mr Berry does not think that that is very important. Well, it is. We think it is and it would appear from this week's Chronicle that they think it is as well.
The recommendation of the Health Ministers Conference with regard to aged care was that the Premiers consider a Commonwealth proposal to assume responsibility for aged care, including aged care nursing home patients in public hospitals and community care for the aged. Different States have reacted with varying degrees of warmth to these proposals. I gather that the receptiveness of particular States to these suggestions is really dependent on their pre-existing financial positions and the levels at which they already provide aged care.
Federal funding for residential aged care would be at the level of 40 beds per thousand over the age of 75; funding for home and community care projects, HACC projects, would be at the rate of 60 beds per thousand. That is all very well and good, but it really does depend on how many aged care places are actually already being provided. In New South Wales, for instance, I understand that 66 residential aged care beds per thousand are being provided; so the 40 beds per thousand proposed by the Commonwealth is less than generous.
Apparently, the way the Commonwealth is thinking about taking over these services could even leave some States, in particular Victoria, with a heavier financial burden than previously, and, Madam Speaker, there is some discussion about whether the Commonwealth is to assume control over just residential aged care and leave HACC, or assume control over both. In any case, the point I wish to make is that the suggestion that if the Commonwealth would play a greater role in aged care services it would be an unqualified boon is definitely not necessarily so. We need more information.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .