JOHN MENADUE. Dental Care – Medicare – Private Health Insurance.

 

Funding a Medicare dental scheme instead of the subsidy to PHI. 

The PHI subsidy of over $10 billion p.a. would be much better spent on a Medicare dental scheme.

In the following article Jennifer Doggett in Croakey, reports that about one third of Australians put off going to a dentist because of costs. 

Jennifer Doggett writes:

recent report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) found that almost one-third of people put off or avoid going to the dentist altogether due to the cost.

AIHW found that forty-four per cent of uninsured people were avoiding appointments altogether and even among those who had visited a dentist in the previous 12 months, 20 per cent did not go ahead with the recommended treatment because of the cost.

Private health insurance (PHI) is clearly not the answer to affordability issues for many people, with 20 per cent of people with PHI reporting that they avoided the dentist due to the associated costs.

AHCRA’s view

The Australian Healthcare Reform Alliance (AHCRA) believes that all Australians should have access to high quality, preventive oral health care.

This is not just an equity issue.  Preventable dental problems place a significant economic and social burden on our health system and community as a whole.

AHCRA believes that part of the problem is the way in which dental services are treated as separate from other types of health care.

This makes no sense.  Oral health is a fundamental part of overall health and well-being and without good oral health care, people are at a much higher risk of many systemic health problems.

Avoidable hospitalisation

Currently, preventable oral health problems are responsible for over 60 000 avoidable hospital admissions every year.

This means higher health care costs and an overall increase in social and economic inequality in our community.

Due to Australia’s complex health system, there is no single solution to ensuring all Australians can access oral health care.

However, AHCRA believes that our approach to dental care can only improve if the Commonwealth retains and enhances its role in this area.

Commonwealth responsibility

AHCRA is concerned that the Turnbull Government is trying to hand responsibility for public dental services to the states and territories.

For example, the 2016 Budget proposal to close the Child Dental Benefits Scheme (CDBS) would reduce Commonwealth spending on dental health by $200 million

The future of the CDBS is currently unclear but if the Budget proposal is implemented, the Commonwealth’s contribution to dental care will be reduced to $42 per person targeted by Commonwealth-funded programs.

Increasing risk

AHCRA believes that the more the Commonwealth walks away from direct responsibility for dental care, the more likely it is that the oral health status of the community will decline, in particular among those already at risk.

This will reduce the health status of the community overall, increase existing inequities and result in higher costs to the health system and community as a whole.

#keepdentalcentral campaign

This is why AHCRA is running the #keepdentalcentral campaign to highlight the need for the Commonwealth to strengthen its responsibility for dental policies and programs.

Along with the other members of the National Oral Health Alliance (NOHA), AHCRA believes that to achieve the best outcomes, dental services need to be planned and delivered in the context of other community-based health services.

As NOHA members we work together to support governments and professional bodies to improve oral and dental health in Australia with the goal of ‘A healthy mouth for all Australians’.

AHCRA would welcome support for our campaign from other health groups who share our belief that all Australians should have access to high quality, affordable, preventively oriented dental care.

Jennifer Doggett is a Croakey moderator and the Chair of the Australian Healthcare Reform Alliance.

In an earlier blog on 17 March 2015, John Menadue. Private health insurance and funding a Medicare Dental Scheme, I drew attention to the many failures and risks of PHI. The community is becoming increasingly aware of the problems. The figures that I outlined in this blog show that abolishing the PHI subsidy over a period and transferring the funding to a Medicare Dental Scheme would save money for the taxpayer, improve the quality of health care and be much more equitable. Attempts by Medibank Private and other funds to introduce gimmicky dental check-ups are designed to disguise the failure of PHI in many areas and particularly in dental care.

In that earlier blog, I said

“Abolishing this .. middle class (PHI) subsidy would carry (political) risks considering the powerful PHI lobby and the associated private hospitals that are large donors to the Liberal Party, like Ramsay Healthcare. For this reason I propose that the PHI subsidy currently of $11 billion p.a. and growing should be abolished and the savings used to fund a Medicare Dental Scheme. “

That would make good policy and political sense.

print
This entry was posted in Health, Politics, Vested Interests and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to JOHN MENADUE. Dental Care – Medicare – Private Health Insurance.

  1. Ian W Webster says:

    Dental caries is a universal marker of social inequality and poverty – in every country. Those with money can go to the orthodontist, those who are poor can’t get to the dentist. More than likely those who are poor live in unfluoridated areas and this, combined with a poor diet, contributes to the poor oral health of disadvantaged populations. Disabled people have poor access to dental care and suffer in result.

    As a physician I see dental disease unimaginable to the general public among homeless people, mentally ill and those with serious drug use disorders. Loss of teeth, abscesses, gum disease are ubiquitous in these and other groups. Access to dental treatment is virtually impossible for them.

    It is too easy for governments and, indeed, health professions to give low priority to oral health and dental care. There was a brief period about 15 years ago when some funds flowed to public dental health services but they were soon cut when budget priorities went elsewhere.

    There is a great need for a properly funded public oral health and dental care system.

Comments are closed.