Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (17 April) . . Page.. 981 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

firstly, that eligible persons must be given the choice to receive public hospital services free of charge as public patients; secondly, that access to public hospital services is to be given on the basis of clinical need; and, thirdly, that, to the maximum practical extent, a State will ensure the provision of public hospital services equitably to all eligible persons, regardless of their geographical location. That is the reason we service so many New South Wales patients.

For some specific programs, the Commonwealth also may make specific grants or enter into cost-sharing arrangements with the ACT. In all cases, there is a reporting process in place with the Commonwealth. The ACT meets those responsibilities in relation to Commonwealth funding under the Medicare agreement and from other grants. Mr Berry should have known that. He should have known that paragraph (3) is all tied up in the Medicare agreement. It is all there right now. It is a contractual arrangement between the two organisations, between the two governments.

Mr Berry: So the Commonwealth Government would be quite happy with animals being treated in the hospital?

MRS CARNELL: I am sure that they are no more happy than I am, Mr Berry, and that is the reason these people will get a big bill. They will pay, and pay big.

Mr Berry: Why did you laugh about it on television, right across Australia?

MRS CARNELL: I did not laugh, Mr Berry. The fourth point is the interrelationship between public and private patients, their treatment, costs, access, referral patterns and billing practices. There is no mention of dogs anywhere in this, so I am a bit at a loss to know what Mr Berry is talking about. As I have already said, one of the principles of the Medicare agreement is that access to public hospital services be on the basis of clinical need. The ACT totally follows that principle. Treatment cost depends solely on the needs of the patient and is not dependent at all, as Mr Berry should know, on their insurance status. Should a patient elect to be treated privately, they will be billed for their accommodation, in line with hospital practice. The medical costs for these patients are a matter for the patient and the doctor concerned. If by "referral patterns" the motion means referrals to specialists by general practitioners, then the choice of specialists certainly is a matter for the patient to decide, usually in consultation with the general practitioner. The same process applies to both public and private patients, although some specialists may not necessarily accept a referral.

This situation of the dog that was treated at Woden Valley Hospital on 20 March - there is no doubt about that - is unacceptable to everybody. The doctors involved have been hauled over the coals. They are subject currently to four different inquiries. There is a capacity, and I am very happy to follow it up if the Assembly wants to, to go to the Health Complaints Commissioner, to make that five inquiries into this incident. I have given an absolute undertaking to the community and to this Assembly that they will be billed, and billed for the total cost of the facilities they have used.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .