Talk:Health care in Australia
|WikiProject Australia||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
This sentence "Additionally, government funding allocated for public health care is more than enough to cover the costs of public health care in Australia. The corrupt politicians will regularly split up the remaining funds and transfer them to private accounts disguised as public health care funding." seems to be a pretty bold generalization, especially without a reference. I am by no means an expert but I dont think such formulations should be in wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Medicare-brand.png
Image:Medicare-brand.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This article should also cover influenza, antibiotics and vaccinations, aging population, technology cost issues, females slightly more healthy and % of gdp spending on health. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article needs more clarity about how health care is delivered and funded in Australia. A starting point might be the document "The Australian Health Care System: An Outline" at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/healthsystem-overview-contents , which is a bit out of date, but has the basics.
The figure for health expenditure as a percentage of GDP can be updated from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare health expenditure bulletin at http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10659 The per capita expenditure would be better stated in Australian dollars, from the above-mentioned source. The Australian dollar fluctuates markedly against the USA dollar.
- I updated this info today and included the ref to that website.--Amaher (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The statement that Medicare Australia "... is primarily concerned with the payment of Doctors and Nursing staff, and the financing of state-run hospitals" is misleading. Medicare Australia is not directly involved in the funding of public hospitals, which is done mainly by direct transfers from the Commonwealth (federal) government to state and territory (provincial) governments under bilateral funding agreements. Medicare Australia administers Medicare benefits payments which are essentially payments of subsidies to patients to cover all or part of the fees charged by private sector medical (and some other) practitioners. Since some doctors are allowed to exercise rights of private practice in public hospitals, some of the Medicare benefits may flow ultimately to public hopsials under agreements between hospitals and doctors.
The "national health policy" section is confusing as it does not make it clear that the funding arrangements are different for (1) public patients in hospital, (2) private patients in hospital, (3) private patients out of hospital and (4) purely government financed services out of hospital. The title of the section is a misnomer. It would be more accurately used for a section covering Commonwealth and joint Commonwealth-State decisions (for example Council of Australian Government decisions) on health, and would be wider in scope than funding of individual services to patients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillBoojum (talk • contribs) 03:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Peak bodies are umbrella organisations that advocate on a national or international level. In Australia they often represent multiple state based organisations. I created the section because the division into federal and state provided services is often cited as an issue for health care in Australia. The section should be expanded or maybe the links moved to the see also section. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Statistics and Inception
The Statistics section and the Inception section should probably be removed. The statistics section is outdated and inappropriate for an article about Healthcare in Australia, which should be about that country's health care system rather than random stats about the life expectancy. The Inception section is bizarre and meaningless - what is it referring to?--Amaher (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the strange "Inception" section because it referred to something called the "National Health Policy" that doesn't seem to exist, and contained weasel words.--Amaher (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a section missing in this article referring to the major private health insurance companies in Australia, their histories, corporate data and statistics on membership, plus some discussion about the competitive corporate environment in the Australian Private Health Care Sector. For example, what is Bupa? What happened to MBF? This must be an interesting sequence of events but we don't know the saga, so our readers are missing out up till now. Demographic and geographic data about Private Health fund coverage in this article would also be very useful indeed.Dickmojo (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Timeshift9 apparently undid some of my recent edits to the Statistics section, with the single word comment "fix". I'm assuming that this revert was an accident, and have restored the text. (Actually I'm not sure that all of what I put in belongs, so maybe it does need some trimming, surely it's not all bad!) Timeshift9, if you're "undo" of my edit was intentional, could you please discuss it here. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Contribution to GDP
Statistics for GDP contribution are wrong. Revenue is not a reflection of final goods and services which make up GDP (Industry Value Added (IVA) is). The ABS National Accounts state (1st Quarter 2012), GDP contribution by the Health Sector to be 5.9%. Thus, although the revenue figure may be correct -- contribution to GDP is overstated.
Recent removal of health system critique
I would prefer if the cited sentence regarding administrative duplication and a lack of coordination at the national level stay. Both factors have been long considered to be valid criticisms. Why is that unnecessary? Statements of descriptions aren't opinions. Yes the health care system in Australia has undergone major reforms by the Gillard Government to address this. These reforms should also be summarised with expert opinion on how well the reforms might address responsiveness and inefficiencies. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)