- Jane Hall, professor of health economics1,
- Alan Maynard (akm3@york.ac.uk), professor of health economics2
- 1Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
- 2Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 5DD
- Correspondence to: A Maynard
- Accepted 3 December 2004
Australia is held up as a model of how to increase use of private health care in the United Kingdom, but the effects of its reforms are not all beneficial
Introduction
The Australian prime minister, John Howard, has engineered a major expansion in private healthcare insurance and been re-elected. The electorally popular Medicare provides universal coverage for free public hospital treatment, out of hospital medical services, and pharmaceuticals. Private insurance is limited to private treatment in hospital and some ancillary services, including dental care.1 Yet the two decade trend of falling insurance cover has been reversed, and over three years the proportion of the population insured grew from 30% to 45%.2 What can the leader of the British opposition, Michael Howard, and other European conservatives learn from an Australian colleague who has deliberately sought to enhance the role of the private sector?
Australian health service
John Howard and the Liberal party have been opposed to Medicare since its introduction in the early 1980s. In 1996, when the Liberal party was returned to government, it promised to maintain Medicare while strengthening private insurance. In fact, government policy has supported private health insurance. It introduced a 30% subsidy of the cost of premiums, which has been associated with a growth in use of private hospitals, private dental care, and other ancillary services while public hospitals and general practice, essential components of Medicare, faced growing difficulties with increased waiting time for hospital care and growing gaps between the cost to patients of primary care and Medicare reimbursements.3 4
The Australian private health insurance industry is heavily regulated; only approved insurance funds can offer health insurance, insurers (generally) are obliged to take all comers, premiums are community rated (that is, individuals pay the same rate regardless of their individual risk), and premium increases require government …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27