Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance) Bill 2010 and to thank the members who have made contributions to this debate. Sometimes these sorts of bills can seem very technical but everyone in this House—and certainly on our side of the House—does not underestimate the importance of Medicare and making sure that it is used in a way that is transparent, accountable and to the benefit of patients. This bill is about making sure that the transparency and accountability at the core of our broader health reforms are also able to be applied within the Medicare system itself.

We on the government side make no apologies for wanting to be very transparent about the way that we spend taxpayers’ money and how we account for all healthcare services, whether they are delivered in public hospitals, in the community or through general practice, pathology, diagnostic imaging and the many other ways that we pay for health services that people need.

This bill, as I have said, ensures that transparency and accountability from healthcare practitioners is achieved if they want to provide Medicare funded services. The bill is a reintroduction of a largely identical bill that was introduced into the 42nd Parliament, but this version incorporated parliamentary amendments that had been agreed to or moved by the government during the parliamentary debate in the previous parliament.

The reason that it is necessary for this bill to be passed—and I am pleased that the opposition have indicated they now support this bill—is that 20 per cent of practitioners contacted by Medicare do not respond to or refuse to cooperate with a request to substantiate a Medicare benefit that is paid for a service. When this occurs, Medicare currently does not have the authority to require a practitioner to comply with this request. This means there is no way to confirm that the Medicare benefit was correct and that public money is being spent appropriately.

I want to emphasise, as I know many colleagues from the AMA and other professional organisations did want us to make clear, that the vast majority of practitioners do comply with those requests, and the bill will not have any effect when people comply with those requests and make clear that the claims they are putting forward can be properly substantiated.

This bill, not surprisingly, has had significant debate, a lot of stakeholder consultation, a full inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee and now a range of amendments that I think address all of those significant issues that have been raised. The amendments acknowledge the need for Medicare to take advice from medical professionals from within the organisation and to use the profession to assist doctors in responding to an audit. Of course, when we use that 20 per cent figure, many of those claims can be justified and the practitioners are appropriately claiming and using taxpayer funds. For the small number that are not, it is important that we give Medicare the authority that it needs.

I want to also emphasise that the bill does not introduce any record-keeping requirements that do not otherwise already exist. It will be up to the person who receives the notice to decide what documents they have available to substantiate the service. This bill is not retrospective and will only apply to Medicare services provided after the commencement of the bill.

So there is no reason why the parliament should not consider this legislation. We believe it marks another important opportunity for greater transparency in the health system and to make sure that taxpayers’ money is being spent appropriately on the healthcare services they expect. I would like to thank not just all the members who contributed to this debate but all the people who participated in the earlier Senate committee inquiry. I again thank the opposition for now supporting this important legislative change. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context