Published Letters

Opt out –and quickly 

I have advised my patients that unless they have a close relationship with a regular GP who has talked to them about My Health Record (Age 6/11) then they should opt out of it by November 15^th. After that date the Government will force it on almost everyone. My Health Record is close to useless in the absence of a GP interested in making it work and keeping the information up to date and relevant. Most are not doing that.

Most specialists like myself are not set up to add to or even look at the MHR. The Government knows this and is doing nothing about it. It refuses to slow down the implementation despite the adverse Senate inquiry findings. Is this because they want a big data base to sell off to commercial interests in years to come? The data is not safe. Opt out now. 

Dr Tim Woodruff

President

Doctors Reform Society

As a financially comfortable part time medical specialist I will be in the group receiving the highest tax cut immediately whilst my daughters working full time at much lower income will receive about one third of that. It’s of even more concern that in seven years’ time the major beneficiaries will be those on incomes like that of politicians, receiving eight times more in reduced tax compared to low income earners. It’s great that there is some dedicated mental health spending but little else in the budget will change the fact that in five years my patients will still be waiting years for surgery, struggling to afford specialist visits and to negotiate the nightmare of getting the best health care, unless they have a healthy credit card.  This may be all about jobs and growth but It is definitely not about a fair go.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration discussion paper suggesting general practitioners should no longer be able to prescribe strong painkillers (“GPs face ban on painkillers”, The Age, 27/1) ignores two major issues.

Firstly, many GPs are competent and capable of playing their part in managing patients with chronic pain, including palliative care, but they often have little access to the supports needed to manage complex issues such as poverty, illicit drug abuse, mental health, and addiction, or knowledge of how often the patient is getting second supplies of the drugs through another doctor.

Secondly, the suggestion that pain specialists will be able to replace GPs is laughable. Many patients with chronic pain are poor because they can’t work. Private pain specialists are often very expensive. Two of my patients were told by their specialists last year that as WorkCover had ceased they would have to pay a huge co-payment despite being on Newstart and drastically below the poverty line. These specialists were managing their income not their patients’ health.

The most important part of a nation’s infrastructure is the people. People who are sick are less productive. Parents, children and partners of sick people are less productive as they take time to care for loved ones.
But this government has systematically attacked investment in the health of that infrastructure (the people) by freezing the Medicare rebate, and cutting promised dental care and funding to multiple community-based care organisations and so on. The aim of making Australia more productive reflects the narrow vision of the elites who run our country. Instead the government will continue to subsidise the private health and hospitals industries and pay $445 million above world market prices to the pharmaceutical industry for prescription drugs.

The abuse of the extended Medicare safety net is no surprise (The Age, 15/4). When it was introduced by John Howard, the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association detailed in its monthly newsletter how a psychiatrist could make more money without any extra care or cost to the patient. Also, most of the money spent through the safety net goes to rich electorates. Very little goes to patients in poor electorates. The scheme has helped many doctors financially but was a gimmick designed to fool people into believing the Coalition cared about out-of-pocket costs. In fact, the Medicare rebate freeze sends a clear message this government wants patients to pay more out of their pocket.

Dr Tim Woodruff, Doctors Reform Society

Published in the age on Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Amanda Vanstone claims the Health Minister understands efficiency  (Comment, 25/4). However, Sussan Ley’s view of efficiency is selective. Documented savings of $1 billion per year would be made if the government paid world market prices for pharmaceuticals. But it refuses to tackle the issue and continues to receive donations from the pharmaceutical industry. Also, some $8 billion is spent on the inefficient private health insurance rebate.

Read more

Published in Australian on Tuesday, April 26, 2016

The claim that there are huge unnecessary costs in the health system is one we have been pointing out for years. It is encouraging that the Federal Government is showing some limited interest in this issue. The approach however, is half hearted. It continues to ignore the $1 billion savings which could be achieved if our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme paid world market prices for drugs. Thus for the the breast cancer treatment Arimidex, the taxpayer  pays 30 times more than in Britain, and for cholesterol lower drugs it costs 10 times as much in Australia than in both Britian and New Zealand. But pharmaceutical companies are good political donors.

Read more

Published in smh on Saturday, February 27, 2016

It’s great to see the Minister for Health, Sussan Ley, asking why prostheses such as hip replacements and pacemakers cost so much more than world market prices in the private system (“Prosthetic procedure cost disparity targeted“, February 26).

Read more