Page 443 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The trend is that low income people are taking out private insurance to avoid the problem of increasing waiting lists, and the higher income people who can afford private insurance are opting for Medicare. Is this social justice? Is this compassion? Is it equitable? This is topsy-turvy. But it carries with it very serious implications for health funding and the efficient delivery of an adequate health service. We believe that this situation can be redressed, but this will require the Government and this Health Minister opposite to realise and recognise what is happening and set in place policies that will turn around the serious problems of funding and the inefficiencies of our hospital system.
People who can afford to take out private health insurance should be encouraged to do so. It is usually about here that all those on the other side of the house start interjecting that the Liberals will force people into private health insurance. This is simply not true. In an attempt to maintain public hospital funding levels the coalition government would give people on pensions and low income incentives to take out private insurance. In fact, single pensioners would receive $400 and a couple would receive $800. For a family there is a cash rebate if they choose private insurance.
Unlike the current Government, we on this side of the house believe that high income earners - those earning over $50,000 per annum - should pay extra if they are not privately insured. Of course, if this group is privately insured they would pay no surcharge. The falling rate of revenue gained from privately insured patients in our public hospital system should be of great concern to the Government. In 1990-91 ACT Health received $14.8m from privately insured patients. By 1991-92 this had fallen to $13.95m. Already this year the revenue levels are $356,000 short of budget projections.
Every privately insured patient who is admitted to Woden Valley Hospital as a public patient loses ACT Health approximately $300 per occupied bed day. This is money ACT Health can ill afford to lose, as was proven again with the recent release of the December quarter financial figures. These figures show that ACT Health has exceeded its budget for the first six months of this financial year by $4.2m. One would have to question whether the $4.2m is really an accurate reflection because one should add the $2m employer contributed superannuation pay-out. Add that $2m to the blow-out and you get $6.2m.
Mr Berry: Has he come back to the ACT yet?
MR WESTENDE: That is the ACT. Certainly, employer based superannuation contributors do not have to be paid until the end of the year, but to gain an accurate picture of the budget the payment should be accrued now. This means that the budget, as I said, has really been overrun by $6.2m in the first six months.
We have all heard Mr Berry say time and time again that he has the health budget under control and that health is doing better under his stewardship. Better than what? Let us have a look at the figures. For the six months to December 1992 Mr Berry's health budget showed a $4.2m blow-out made up of an expenditure overrun of $2.96m and a revenue shortfall of $1.28m. Let us look back at the same period in the previous year, that is, the six months to December 1991. It turns out that the official figures for that period show a budget overrun of $1.81m, made up of an underspending of $148,000 and a revenue shortfall of $1.96m.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .