Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Safety Net) Bill 2015. This bill gives effect to the 2014-15 budget measure, Simplifying Medicare safety net arrangements, and, as was the theme with that budget and, frankly, this government's general approach to the health portfolio at that time, it represents a cut to the safety nets of just under $270 million.

From the outset, I want to make it clear that Labor does not say that the current Medicare Safety Net arrangements are perfect nor that they are not in need of reform. The three safety nets, in essence, are confusing for many people and they are overly complex. The principle behind the safety net, Extended Medicare Safety Net and the Greatest Permissible Gap, is simple. It recognises that, in any one particular year, normally because of a serious health event, patients incur significant out-of-pocket expenses that are not otherwise covered by Medicare, or, to quote from the legislation when it was first introduced to parliament, the safety net is 'to protect all Australians from higher out-of-pocket costs for medical services provided outside hospitals.'

The safety nets exist, principally, to ensure that patients who experience a serious health event and who would otherwise struggle to meet the costs are able to do so; and, in general, they do that. But we also know that, for a whole raft of reasons—lack of access to services, geographic location, inability to pay what are often very high up-front costs and lack of competition in particular areas—there are many vulnerable groups in our community that never ever reach the safety nets.

Labor understand the need to reform the safety nets, and we are up for having a broader discussion with the government about how they might better be targeted to ensuring that disadvantaged Australians, in particular, are getting better access to the care that they need. In government, we did substantially try to retarget the safety nets. The changes made in 2009 to the Health Insurance Amendment (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Bill 2009 by my former colleague, the then member for Gellibrand and Minister for Health Nicola Roxon, introduced caps for specific items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule once patients had reached the Extended Medicare Safety Net.

In developing the policy case for these changes, the then minister, Nicola Roxon, was supported by two independent reports, including one by the Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation at the University of Technology in Sydney. The report concluded that, for every Extended Medicare Safety Net benefit dollar that was paid to a patient, 78c went towards meeting the doctor's higher fees rather than reducing patients out-of-pocket costs. The report also noted the extent to which safety net benefits were being paid for obstetric and assisted reproductive therapy services, principally because of an increase in the fees charged for these services rather than better access for services or more people from disadvantaged communities being able to access them.

The changes that were made to the Medicare safety nets in 2009 allowed the Minister for Health to determine the maximum benefit that is payable under the safety net by imposing a cap by way of a legislative instrument. The items that were capped as part of what was then announced in Labor's 2009-10 budget included obstetrics, assisted reproductive technology services, hair transplants, injection of a therapeutic substance into an eye, one type of varicose vein treatment and one type of cataract surgery. At the time, the rebates were increased for some MBS items to assist patients with their out-of-pocket costs. The government has said that these reforms did result in a drop in fees charged for these particular items. But the issue that appears to have emerged now is that, in some areas, there has been a further shift and the Extended Medicare Safety Net is driving higher up-front costs for some MBS items not capped.

In better understanding the context through which changes to this bill are being made, it is also worth reflecting on the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into out-of-pocket costs in health care. This inquiry was conducted over six months in 2014 and considered the existing safety net arrangements specifically. One of the consistent themes that was raised during this inquiry, and it is reflected in the committee's final report, is that existing safety nets do not benefit or assist people who are most in need of support from a safety net. I note that at the Senate Supplementary Budget Estimates hearings in October this year, the deputy secretary with responsibility for these issues provided evidence that, unlike the PBS safety nets, the MBS safety nets tended to be more regressive and engaged by people in middle and higher income brackets.

In its report into out-of-pocket costs in health care handed down in August last year, the community affairs references committee concluded that it was:

… concerned that existing safety nets do not benefit or assist people who are most in need of support from a safety net. Often individuals will incur significant out-of-pocket costs before they reach the respective threshold amount. As outlined throughout the inquiry, out-of-pocket costs can be barriers to accessing health care.

The committee went on to recommend that:

The government review the impact and effectiveness of existing safety nets to ensure that current safeguards provide adequate protection to the most vulnerable in our community.

Unfortunately, that is not quite what the government has done in this bill. I do acknowledge that the committee concluded that existing safety net arrangements are complex, and that many people find it difficult to understand the requirements and thresholds that must be met to qualify, in turn recommending a single integrated safety net.

In this context, I want to go back to my original point: that Labor is not opposed to changes to the safety net but, as the committee noted, there must be careful consideration as to what services and costs are eligible to contribute to the safety net. This simply is not what has been done in this bill.

I want to acknowledge particularly that the minister has been generous in briefing me on the bill and providing further information from her department, and I thank her adviser who is here with us this evening. Some of it, unfortunately, has not come in a form that allows proper comparisons between patients who live in particular areas, and specific item numbers that contribute towards the extended Medicare safety net would have been helpful. The timeliness obviously has been a bit of an issue as well, but I certainly acknowledge the work provided, and we have studied it carefully.

Labor appreciates that there is some history in these changes and also that a policy case does exist for changes to the Medicare safety nets to ensure that patients who most need access to them do have access. In this context, I acknowledge that this bill does reduce the safety net thresholds so more people, the government has claimed—these will on the whole be concessional patients—will reach the new safety net. That is in itself a good thing. However, it is unclear to me how lowering the thresholds means that one patient group, concessional patients, will have more chance of meeting the safety net than general patients, if that is not actually what happens now. At Senate estimates the deputy secretary responsible within the Department of Health for these changes provided evidence that, at present, the balance of safety net utilisation is mainly towards general patients rather than concessional patients and that the MBS safety net is overwhelmingly non-pensioner, non-concessional clients.

So again I agree that there is a case for making changes to the safety net, particularly changes that encourage the uptake or allow the uptake by more concessional patients, but the government unfortunately has not made the case as to how what it is doing specifically targets concession card holders, other than the lowering of the threshold and the assumption that therefore concession card holders will automatically be the ones that are still able to find the up-front costs to meet those safety net thresholds in the first place. It has not made the case that what it is doing specifically targets concession card holders.

The sting in the tail, of course, in this legislation is that it also makes changes that reduce the out-of-pocket costs that can contribute to reaching the safety net, and the benefits payable once the safety nets are reached are also reduced. That is where the government is realising the savings in this bill. Under the existing safety net arrangements, the original safety net threshold is set at $440.80 for all Medicare card holders, and the extended Medicare safety net threshold for concessional patients and FTB part A recipients is set at $638.40 and for general patients at $2,000. Once the extended Medicare safety net threshold has been reached, 80 per cent of patients' out-of-pocket costs are covered by the government or the extended Medicare safety net benefit cap for out-of-hospital services—as I mentioned previously, as part of the changes made by the then Minister for Health and Ageing in 2009. Under the changes in this bill, the existing Medicare safety nets and greatest permissible gap are replaced with a simplified Medicare safety net. Under the proposed arrangements, the thresholds will be $400 for families and singles that are concession card holders; $700 for families eligible for family tax benefit A and non-concessional singles; and $1,000 for non-concessional families.

Other changes in the bill limit the accumulation to the safety net threshold. Under current safety net arrangements, all out-of-pocket costs for out-of-hospital Medicare services count towards the threshold. Under the proposed changes in this bill, a formula is to be applied that will reduce the amount of out-of-pocket expenses that can contribute to that accumulation. Instead of all out-of-hospital Medicare services contributing to the threshold, this is to be calculated based on 150 per cent of the MBS schedule fee minus the Medicare rebate. Labor is concerned that the government has not thought through the unintended consequences of applying such a blanket cut.

That brings me also to the benefits payable once the safety net threshold has been reached. Under the current arrangements, once patients have reached the original Medicare safety net, out-of-pocket costs are covered at 100 per cent of the MBS schedule fee. Once patients reach the extended Medicare safety net, 80 per cent of their out-of-pocket costs are covered—or the extended Medicare safety net benefit cap for out-of-hospital services, if it is for a service to which a cap applies. Under the new arrangements, a cap is set for the maximum safety net benefits amount.

In the second reading speech, the minister said:

This amendment will ensure that a strong safety net continues to protect all Australians from high out-of-pocket costs for medical services provided out of hospital.

Unfortunately, it will not. Labor has had countless representations from psychiatrists, providers of fertility services, providers of radiation oncology and a number of other doctors groups, providing details of precisely what these changes will mean for the patients that they care for. I will go into the detail of some of those impacts shortly. I also have a petition, which unfortunately I do not have here with me in the chamber. I will seek to get it in here so I can also provide that for the House if I have leave to table it.

Labor, as I said, has had countless representations from psychiatrists, providers of fertility services, providers of radiation oncology and a number of other doctors groups, providing details of precisely what these changes mean for their patients. It is worth pointing out that, having announced the change back in the 2014 budget—this is not this year's budget measure; it is the previous one, which was handed down on 13 May 2014—and having heard about the adverse impacts of these changes, the government really has not made the case, nor has it done anything to say, 'These are the changes we think we need to make to deal with some of these issues.' It basically has, in essence, introduced the bill exactly as it was on the day the budget was handed down in 2014. There has been a lot of traffic on this. There has been a lot of concern expressed about it, and a lot of issues have been raised. There has been ample opportunity to try to deal with perhaps some of those issues or to have a bit of a rethink about this bill, but that is not what has happened.

As I said at the outset, Labor does not claim that the safety nets are perfect. Labor do not say that, without question, they are utilised as intended by providers, nor do we say that every person who should have access to them does. With this proposal having been on the table since May 2014, I am surprised that more work has not been done in this area of reform. The government having initially developed this policy more than a year and a half ago, not a single change has been considered to address the adverse consequences contained within the bill as it has been presented. On top of that, in the meantime the government has frozen indexation of the MBS rebate and seems to have entirely ignored the nexus between these two savings measures.

We have some serious concerns about the thousands of people who will be adversely impacted by these changes. I intend to explore some of that in detail during this debate. If the government is serious that more people who should have access to safety nets will have as a result of these changes, and if it really thinks that patients will not be adversely impacted by these $270 million of cuts, you would think that the data to support this, and any other information, would be provided not just to the opposition but in the public domain, to make the case for this bill well before we are here in this chamber having the debate.

The opposition to this bill has been consistent across the health sector. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has warned that patients will be left out of pocket under the proposed changes. The college of GPs has rightly pointed to the additional impact that the ongoing indexation freeze of the Medicare benefits schedule will have when the combined impact of these changes is taken into account. On this point specifically, the college president, Professor Frank Jones, has said:

… coupled with the indexation freeze, the legislation will actually increase the cost of care to vulnerable groups. Safety net thresholds will increase by CPI annually while rebates are frozen.

In making this point, the college of GPs has provided an example, using an MBS item, No. 23—the item number for a standard GP consultation. To quote the college's example directly:

A patient who has reached the Medicare Safety Net threshold and faces a $75 fee for an item 23 will pay $19.45 in out-of-pocket expenses, compared to $7.60 under the current safety net arrangement.

By 2018, when the MBS indexation freeze has been in place for three years, patients will face $24.03 in out-of-pocket costs, compared to $8.51 under the current safety net for the same standard GP consultation with a $75 fee.

This in itself calls into question the accuracy of some of the government's costings on the bill, for this measure was originally announced, as I have said, in the context of the 2014-15 budget. Since then the government has cut more than $2 billion from Medicare through its ongoing Medicare benefits schedule indexation freeze, and no consideration has been factored into the costings in this bill in terms of changes to doctors' billing practices. For the government to think that doctors would not change their billing practices because of these cuts is just simply not the evidence that is being provided to me.

The Australian Medical Association has said that the sickest and most disadvantaged Australians will be hit hardest by these changes. We know from OECD's Health at a Glance 2015 data, published last week, that Australia ranks very poorly when it comes to the share of out-of-pocket medical expenditure as a percentage of household consumption. In the context of this bill, the president of the AMA, Professor Brian Owler has said:

The new Medicare Safety Net arrangements, together with the ongoing freeze of Medicare patient rebates, mean that growing out-of-pocket costs will become a reality for all Australian families, including the most vulnerable patients in our community.

Professor Owler goes on to say:

With higher out of pocket costs, patients will delay seeking treatment, or not seek treatment at all.

Concluding that:

The new arrangements will be a burden for Australian families. They must be voted down

I want to talk about the impact on psychiatry patients in particular. A significant number of psychiatrists have raised serious concerns about the impact these changes will have on their patients. To quote the vice president of the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists, Dr Shirley Prager and a number of her colleagues who co-signed correspondence to me:

I am very concerned about the impact the new Safety Net proposals will have on patients who need long-term ongoing mental health treatment as these patients will find their health care with a psychiatrist increasingly unaffordable. If the new Safety Net is legislated a significant group of high need patients who require consultation with their psychiatrist more than once a week will lose the appropriate level of support provided by the current Safety Net arrangements. Many of these patients are poor and unable to work as a consequence of illness, and the intensive psychiatric help that they urgently need to re-build their lives will be lost under the new Safety Net.

I believe that patients who need to access a psychiatrist in these circumstances will suffer significant and increased financial hardship, or may, very frequently, be forced to give up much needed treatment to the overall detriment of their own personal health and well-being. The consequences are potentially disastrous.

The outcome of these changes will severely compromise access to appropriate treatment for a particularly vulnerable group of patients with serious mental illnesses, including sexual abuse victims who are currently the subject of a Royal Commission. These changes, if put into place—

And this is a big claim—

will lead to an increase in the incidence of suicide among this patient group.

And the concerns about psychotherapy patients in particular are ones that are shared by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists.

The college, I do acknowledge, is generally supportive of the rationale for the changes to the safety net. And on this I will reiterate Labor's position that we are not opposed to the safety net being better targeted. But the college president, Professor Malcolm Hopwood, says, 'We remain seriously concerned that the implementation of the above changes will not enable the continued treatment of a vulnerable group of people accessing intensive psychotherapy services.' Professor Hopwood, writing on behalf of the College of Psychiatrists has said of these changes, 'Psychotherapy is an important evidence-based psychiatric service delivered by psychiatrists through intensive sessions of one-on-one therapy. Some patients who present with a range of complex mental health conditions, including young people who have experienced great trauma, such as sexual or physical abuse, are most appropriately supported through frequent—multiple times per week—psychotherapy sessions with a psychiatrist over a longer-term period, often 12 months or more. This means they can quickly pass the 50 sessions per year limit imposed in the new safety net and hence exceed their access to the most-subsidised care.

In the proposed bill the rebate is cut significantly after 50 sessions. According to our modelling the out-of-pocket cost to the patient of single sessions of therapy is likely to double. People who currently receive subsidised therapy will find that from the beginning of 2016 it will cost thousands of dollars. In our opinion this is not conducive to making mental health care accessible, or prioritising those most needy.' So we are talking about some of the most vulnerable, needy patients imaginable.

On this point specifically, I do wish to refer to a petition, which I will seek leave to table in the form of a document, signed by some 1,464 people opposing these changes and started by Dr Angela Livingstone. This petition, named 'Don't leave the most vulnerable behind' calls on the government not to leave these people behind. And I will briefly quote directly from it:

I fear this will have a terrible effect on a significant number of patients who need long-term ongoing mental health treatment. Currently (in line with fees outlined in the Medicare Benefits Schedule), this group of patients who see a psychiatrist more than 50 times per year have their rebate reduced by half but this is largely covered by the Safety Net. However, the new measures in the Single Safety Net will result in a massively increased gap of $120 or more for every session after 50 sessions for these people. This is unaffordable for most people, let alone those socioeconomically disadvantaged by their condition.

These high need patients require therapy with their psychiatrist more than once a week, and they will lose the support provided by the current Safety Net arrangements. Many of these patients are poor and unable to work as a consequence of illness, and the intensive psychiatric help that they urgently need to re-build their lives will be lost under the new Safety Net.

They will suffer significant and increased financial hardship, or may be forced to give up much needed treatment with potentially disastrous consequences.

Again, she refers in the petition particularly to patients who have been the survivors of sexual abuse.

Labor certainly understands the concerns expressed by this petition. We have not sought any of this out. We have not gone out to groups and said, 'Hey, come to us and tell us why this bill's terrible.' These have all come to our offices spontaneously from these groups immediately seeking for Labor not to support the bill. This is not something we have gone out deliberately to do. We have actually taken a long time to have a considered view of what we might do on this bill, and this has been groups coming to us. So Labor certainly understands those concerns. Whilst continuing my speech, I wish to seek leave to table this document, representing the voices of some 1,464 people who are expressing their concerns about this particular measure.

See this speech in context