The potential downstream effects of proposed changes in Australian private health insurance policy: The case for naturopathy

Leach, MJ; Steel, A

The potential downstream effects of proposed changes in Australian private health insurance policy: The case for naturopathy

Leach, MJ Steel, A

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Advances in Integrative Medicine, 2018, 5 (2), pp. 48 - 51
Issue Date:: 2018-08-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Commentary on PHI Review - Final Accepted Version - Formatted.docx	Accepted Manuscript Version	41.46 kB	Microsoft Word XML	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Leach, MJ	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Steel, A https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6643-9444	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-08-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Advances in Integrative Medicine, 2018, 5 (2), pp. 48 - 51	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	2212-9588	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/128190
dc.description.abstract	© 2018 Elsevier Ltd The Australian government has recently announced major reforms to the private health insurance (PHI) system. Amongst the changes are the removal of government-subsidised PHI rebates for consultations with most unregistered complementary medicine practitioners, including naturopathy. However, there are several doubts about these reforms, as this commentary explains, which primarily relate to (1) the basis of the decision, and (2) the consequences of the proposed changes. In terms of the former, an insufficient clinical evidence base was claimed to be the main driver of this decision. However, the evidence informing this decision had several limitations, and in the case of naturopathy, was somewhat contradictory. The absence of enforceable standards (from statutory registration) was another factor contributing to the decision; yet, for naturopathy, this has largely been the product of government inaction, rather than a lack of action from the profession. In terms of the downstream effects of these reforms, these could be considerable, including mass membership withdrawal from ancillary (extras) cover and cost-shifting to the public health sector; potentially leading to a rise in PHI premiums, increased demand for general practice services, and a rise in the number of avoidable hospitalisations. The proposed changes also deviate from international standards and declarations, and contravene key performance indicators of a quality health care system. In light of these concerns, the commentary calls for an immediate rethink of the intended PHI reforms, at least for naturopathy.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Advances in Integrative Medicine	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.aimed.2018.04.001	en_US
dc.title	The potential downstream effects of proposed changes in Australian private health insurance policy: The case for naturopathy	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	5	en_US
utslib.for	1104 Complementary and Alternative Medicine	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	5	en_US

Abstract:

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd The Australian government has recently announced major reforms to the private health insurance (PHI) system. Amongst the changes are the removal of government-subsidised PHI rebates for consultations with most unregistered complementary medicine practitioners, including naturopathy. However, there are several doubts about these reforms, as this commentary explains, which primarily relate to (1) the basis of the decision, and (2) the consequences of the proposed changes. In terms of the former, an insufficient clinical evidence base was claimed to be the main driver of this decision. However, the evidence informing this decision had several limitations, and in the case of naturopathy, was somewhat contradictory. The absence of enforceable standards (from statutory registration) was another factor contributing to the decision; yet, for naturopathy, this has largely been the product of government inaction, rather than a lack of action from the profession. In terms of the downstream effects of these reforms, these could be considerable, including mass membership withdrawal from ancillary (extras) cover and cost-shifting to the public health sector; potentially leading to a rise in PHI premiums, increased demand for general practice services, and a rise in the number of avoidable hospitalisations. The proposed changes also deviate from international standards and declarations, and contravene key performance indicators of a quality health care system. In light of these concerns, the commentary calls for an immediate rethink of the intended PHI reforms, at least for naturopathy.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/128190