Published Letters

Published in SMH on Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Means testing access to services can be a very useful way to fund services. It can also be very mean. The reforms to Aged Care aim to increase the availability of services but at a price, easily afforded by the rich. On an income of $30,000, few Australians would regard themselves as rich. But those on such an income will pay an extra $3,000 to get help to stay at home rather than go to a nursing home. Such people frequently have medical problems in addition to difficulties looking after themselves. Federal Government has ignored the data which indicates that 32% of sick Australians don’t see their doctor when sick or don’t fill out all their prescriptions because it costs too much. Many of these people will be trying to find the extra $3,000 per year. Could the Federal Government really want such people to have even more difficulty accessing medical services? Users pay or they don’t get the services and die. Why are we rich Australians so mean?

Tim Woodruff
Vice President
Doctors Reform Society

31 Davison St
Richmond
3121

PH 0401042619

Published in The Australian on Thursday, January 12, 2012

It would be great if more people could see through the bulldust at 20 paces (Rough patch in third way Opinion 11/1). Whilst there have been reforms aimed at increasing social inclusion from the current Federal Government, such reforms are at the periphery and are fighting against socially exclusive structures. Any government with a genuine commitment to social inclusion would not bother with a social inclusion portfolio whilst continuing to support two tiered health and education systems and a tax and benefits system which has led to an increase in income inequality over the last decade.

Tim Woodruff
Vice President
Doctors Reform Society

31 Davison St
Richmond
3121

PH 0401042619

Published in The Australian on Monday, January 9, 2012

Whilst concerns about the effectiveness of the Social Inclusion Unit are valid (Editorial 7/1), the assertion that health, housing, education, and community services are programs that are better performed by the private sector and through the generosity of volunteers seems to be at odds with the facts. Most Australians who need hospital care or an education can’t get it from the private system or from volunteers. Many also depend on government to access affordable housing and community services because the private sector isn’t capable or interested in the most difficult and disadvantaged and there are insufficient volunteers to address their needs.

Tim Woodruff
Vice President
Doctors Reform Society

Published in The Australian on Thursday, July 7, 2011

Setting targets without providing adequate resources is not health reform. In fact, it promotes worse health care as clinicians and bureaucrats waste valuable time working out how to pretend to meet unachievable targets whilst leaving the real needs of patients unattended.

Whilst it makes a big play of reducing inefficiencies and inequities in the private health insurance rebate and the Medicare Safety net, the Federal Government is largely ignoring the fact that more resources and new structures are needed to reform the system so that all patients can afford to get the care they need and deserve

Tim Woodruff
Vice President
Doctors Reform Society

31 Davison St
Richmond
3121

PH 0401042619

Published in The Age on Monday, June 6, 2011

If Minister Roxon really does claim that the new hospital watchdog will not encourage manipulation she must be living in another world. Hospitals struggle to perform because they are expected to the impossible with inadequate resources. How do they get surgery done when the specialists are working next door in the taxpayer funded private hospital? How do they fit patients into beds when the beds are taken by patients waiting for aged care places? How do they stop patients coming to Emergency requiring admission for problems which could and should have been treated in the community? How do they manage a budget which is missing the fair and historical 50/50 Federal/State funding split? They manipulate data to avoid financial punishment and a worsening of their position. The struggle to perform is related mainly to Federal Government policy and we are still awaiting the Federal reforms to address the issues raised above.

Tim Woodruff

President

Doctors Reform Society

Published in Herald Sun on Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The Editor

Whatever happened to patients? They are faced with increasing out of pocket costs if they are fortunate enough to find a doctor, Then they have to negotiate a maze of systems to get tests, allied health , specialist assessment and surgery if needed, all funded in different ways, all charging differently. These are the problems which the new health deal ignores or to which minimal attention is given. A few bandaids are suggested like better after hours service. In hours service for the most needy in our community is unchanged.

The new funding arrangement for hospitals is a political deal which will not deliver any noticeable benefit to patients. The Commonwealth has refused to return to a real50/50 funding split with the States. Its tough performance markers are a joke with waiting times to just get on waiting lists ignored. It continues to support the growth of private hospitals with yearly increases but tells public hospitals they will have to wait for 3 years before there are extra funds for the majority of Australians who depend on public hospitals.

This is a political fix with some small incremental benefits for patients. It is not reform. The most needy will continue to receive the least care.

Dr Tim Woodruff
Vice President
Doctors Reform Society

31 Davison St
Richmond
3121

PH 0401042619

Published in Sydney Morning Herald on Thursday, May 20, 2010

Choosing a private hospital rather than a public one is not necessarily safer despite the report today from the Productivity Commission showing that mortality rates are higher in smaller public than private hospitals, but the same in the larger hospitals. As the report clearly indicates, the explanation may be that most smaller public hospitals are in rural and remote areas. It did not feel it necessarily adequately allowed for this difference. Small private hospitals specialise in relatively simple procedures in otherwise reasonably healthy people and although some adjustments were made for these factors, the Commission indicated it simply didn’t have good enough data to properly compare. The question must be asked of the Government, ‘ Why are all hospitals which spend taxes not forced to provide data to enable comparisons?’, especially given that 60% of private hospitals were not assessed.

The Commission also measured business costs but not charges to patients when measuring efficiency even though previous evidence indicates that private hospitals charge up to twice as much as it costs them. Patients have to pay charges, not costs. No business survives unless charges are well above costs. So the evidence on efficiency is seriously misleading.

Dr Tim Woodruff
President
Doctors Reform Society

Published in The Age on Sunday, May 24, 2009

Last year even Treasury was predicting some decrease in coverage following the changes to the Medicare Levy Surcharge last year. They and all the stakeholders were wrong (Sunday Age 17/5). As we told the Senate Committee at the time, increasing the price of Private Health Insurance does not mean people drop out. Trying to predict human behaviour is as inaccurate as trying to predict a global recession. Premiums have been rising well above inflation since the PHI rebate was introduced, and the numbers have been reasonably stable except for the initial rise following the Government funded industry scare campaign against public hospitals.

If, instead of fiddling at the margins with PHI, the Government transferred to the public hospitals all the over $3 billion tax dollars which currently support the private industry, we might finally see a return to equity and efficiency for all Australians.

Dr Tim Woodruff
President
Doctors Reform Society