Private Health Insurance: High in cost and low in equity | OCCASIONAL PAPER


Government proposals to apply a means test to private health insurance subsidies have re-ignited the debate about the role of private insurance.

Download the new CPD discussion paper Private Health Insurance: High in cost and low in equity

In our present system the vast majority of subsidies disproportionately benefit the well-off. Country people with poor access to private hospitals subsidize high-income city dwellers with private hospitals around the corner. Richer people who can afford private health insurance are more likely to purchase it, and they get a disproportionately high subsidy as a result. Meanwhile basic services like dental care are subsidised for Private Health Insurance policy-holders, but barely accessible to people on low incomes.

The proposals have shortcomings, however, because they don’t go far enough. They would have hardly any impact on membership of private insurance, they would sustain a separation of private and public hospitals, and they would sustain a social division with one hospital network for the well-off, and another for the other 45 percent of Australians. This division is at odds with the Government’s social inclusion policy.

Private health insurance is an expensive and clumsy way to do what the tax system and Medicare do so much better – that is to distribute funds to those who need health care. In itself it is an expensive financial overhead – a $3 billion annual burden on the health care system. Its even greater economic impost is its general impact on the cost of health care. International experience shows that private health insurance buys more expensive health care than tax-funded health insurance, but it doesn’t buy better health care.

Nor has the increased uptake of private insurance succeeded in its claimed purpose of easing pressure on public hospitals. That was an impossible task, because while demand has indeed shifted to private hospitals, so too have health care staff. The main result has simply been a re-shuffling of the queues for limited resources, and that re-shuffling has put private insurance membership ahead of clinical needs.

In this discussion paper John Menadue and Ian McAuley explain, in simple terms, why a single national insurer provides the most efficient and equitable way for Australians to share our health care costs.

Download Private Health Insurance: High in cost and low in equity

Change can happen faster than you think – help us seize the moment and point to the alternatives. Add your voice to ours!

One Response to “Private Health Insurance: High in cost and low in equity | OCCASIONAL PAPER”

  1. Gavin Mooney

    Great paper! 

    Another dimension of all of this is that it can give support to other countries who want to defend private health insurance in this costly and inequitable way. I recently attended a conference in Johannesburg on the proposed National Health Insurance for South Africa and had to confess that Australia (like South Africa) has this tax subsidy for private health insurance. One can easily argue that it is even more bizarre in the context of South Africa where roughly half of health care spending  is in the private sector and half in the public with the former covering 16% of the population and the latter 84%.But in South Africa for those who seek to condone the monstrous inequities in health care there, the fact that Australia ‘has the same system’ is an easily mounted even if superficial defence.

    Gavin Mooney


Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>