The Australian government review of natural therapies for private health insurance rebates: What does it say and what does it mean?

Wardle, J

The Australian government review of natural therapies for private health insurance rebates: What does it say and what does it mean?

Wardle, J

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Advances in Integrative Medicine, 2016, 3 (1), pp. 3 - 10
Issue Date:: 2016-04-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	AIMED Nat Ther Rev 2016.pdf	Published Version	298.24 kB	Adobe PDF	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	Wardle, J https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8813-3542	en_US
dc.date.issued	2016-04-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Advances in Integrative Medicine, 2016, 3 (1), pp. 3 - 10	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	2212-9588	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/55184
dc.description.abstract	© 2016 Elsevier Ltd The review of the Australian Government Rebate on Private Health Insurance for Natural Therapies was set up to examine the evidence of clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, safety and quality of natural therapies in scope of the Review. The terms of reference of the Review are that this examination will inform the decision on which of the Review's in scope natural therapies should continue to receive the government rebate for private health insurance. However, the practical relevance of the review has been negatively affected by the dearth of ‘whole practice’ evidence in natural therapies, even in instances where there is significant evidence for individual elements of those therapies. This has resulted in evidence being inconclusive in situations where there is broad evidence for the intervention of therapies but not practitioners (e.g. herbal medicine and herbalists), or where sufficient evidence may exist but the evidence refers to international practice rather than Australian (e.g. naturopathy). Some medicines based on traditions outside the English-speaking world (e.g. Shiatsu) were disadvantaged by the paucity of research in the English language. In many instances there was no evidence of positive outcomes for some therapies, based not on negative trials, but the fact that no research articles had been published at all. This article examines in detail the scope and results of the Review and discusses what it may mean for integrative medicine in Australia.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Advances in Integrative Medicine	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.aimed.2016.07.004	en_US
dc.title	The Australian government review of natural therapies for private health insurance rebates: What does it say and what does it mean?	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	3	en_US
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services	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
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	3	en_US

Abstract:

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd The review of the Australian Government Rebate on Private Health Insurance for Natural Therapies was set up to examine the evidence of clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, safety and quality of natural therapies in scope of the Review. The terms of reference of the Review are that this examination will inform the decision on which of the Review's in scope natural therapies should continue to receive the government rebate for private health insurance. However, the practical relevance of the review has been negatively affected by the dearth of ‘whole practice’ evidence in natural therapies, even in instances where there is significant evidence for individual elements of those therapies. This has resulted in evidence being inconclusive in situations where there is broad evidence for the intervention of therapies but not practitioners (e.g. herbal medicine and herbalists), or where sufficient evidence may exist but the evidence refers to international practice rather than Australian (e.g. naturopathy). Some medicines based on traditions outside the English-speaking world (e.g. Shiatsu) were disadvantaged by the paucity of research in the English language. In many instances there was no evidence of positive outcomes for some therapies, based not on negative trials, but the fact that no research articles had been published at all. This article examines in detail the scope and results of the Review and discusses what it may mean for integrative medicine in Australia.

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

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/55184