Medicare funding is a big issue and the only answer seems to be cutting services and raising fees. But how about cutting millions perhaps even billions and not hurting anyone? It is simple enough. Stop using GPs as clerks.
Currently employers require a doctor’s note if an employee calls in sick and Medicare pays for it. Why? Let the employers send a supervisor around to check up on their people if they can’t trust them. You don’t need medical knowledge to see if someone has a cold or flu. And if the sufferer claims a sore back then the supervisor will have to do exactly what the doctor does: take their word for it?
Every year when flu is rife we are told to stay home take aspirin and rest because the GP cannot help. Yet government figures show that in 2015 300,000 people saw a GP for flu related matters. Most of them would be for a sick note so that boxes can be ticked at a cost to Medicare of only $11,115,000.
There is a move to allow pharmacists and practice nurses to issue sick notes. But Medicare still pays, and the patient still has to go and fetch the note thus spreading the disease. Let the employers talk to their own people.

Oh dear Johnny,

"Let the employers send a supervisor around to check up on their people if they can’t trust them." A POLICE STATE. Get this, workers are "their people", sounds like Johnny supports slavery!

Universal heath care, 'Medicare', is one of the great initiatives introduced by Labor. As we know, the conservatives hate 'Medicare' and would love to dismantle it, and return to the dark old days of a "user pay" system, but they can't its too bloody popular. Dud Button has a policy of a $7, probably more now, co-payment when visiting a GP. In government the Noalition will cut funding to heath, just as they do to all basic people services provided by government. The PBS, as will Medicare, come under attack from the Noalition if they win government at the next election.

BTW, the only other post Johnny has made on this forum was back in 2018 with an attack on you guessed it, Medicare, seems Johnny has an axe to grind. See ya back in another 5 years time Johnny.

Medicare is a government run system. By definition therefore it is financially profligate and inefficient. While it is among the best health systems world-wide, that's not to say that it doesn't have serious and ongoing problems which will continue to grow as demand increases and the government's financial resources decline.

Medicare of course relies heavily on that portion of the population who have private health insurance and access private facilities that alleviate the pressure on the public system. My recent experience with my wife's cancer scare showed us the value of private coverage. Things were touch and go for a period and access to immediate expertise and state of the art drug regimes were vital. I suspect I'd now be a widower were it not for our private health insurance.

I spent many decades only tangentially dealing with the health system. But with the declining health of both parents and my wife, the past 4 years have been a eye-opener. The waste of resources is monumental. Whatismore, the system is designed around the financial and career aspirations of the participants. I've become a prolific letter writer to individual hospitals and the department with thoughts on particular areas of obvious waste. Sometimes I get a reasoned reply, usually not.

My big bugbear at the moment is the requirement to make unnecessary GP visit. I'm on meds that everyone agrees I'll take for the rest of my life. But the scripts only last 3 months requiring that I visit the GP each quarter. There's no check up. Nothing else is done other than writing a new script. The GP doesn't bulk bill but is too embarrassed to ask for a co-payment for doing effectively nothing. But Medicare still kicks in the $40 or so. No one I've spoken to in the system has any reason why this is required and why I couldn't get yearly or even multi-yearly scripts except that it is a source of funds for the GPs.

I had to laugh about GPs not getting enough back from Medicare. $39.95 for 5 minutes work seems pretty good to me.

mhaze,

Sorry to hear you will be on medication for the rest of your life. Normally those kinds of scrips are for 5 repeats, thus a 6 month supply. Also the doctor should be reviewing your "tablets" on a regular basis.

BTW, new drugs are coming onto the market all the time, and better control of your mental illness is always possible.

One script. Two repeats. Lasts 3 months. Completely inefficient. Doc agrees but nothing to be done - can't upset the SYSTEM.

Nothing to do with mental illness. Blood pressure - probably 'cause I have to deal with morons on a regular basis.

I agree that in this day and age life time scripts are out dated. Scripts could be linked to your medicare card which you can present to any pharmacy. If the doctor wants to review it, the practice can contact the patient directly. In my experience reviews rarely happen, and never every 3 months. I wonder how many of us are on permanent scripts. If it's only a third that still means eight million scripts four times a year. Over to you health minister.

Cholesterol Tablets requiring a script is a bit pointless considering that people will need them for the rest of their life or until a better treatment will become available !

Indy,

How much do you pay for medical prescriptions on the PBS? Are you massively subsidised by us taxpayers. Flash the good old 'free pass' and its another case of the snout in the trough no doubt.

Paul1405,
I've been a Tax payer for a lot longer than you'll ever be !

Dear mhaze,

Mate you do say some idiotic things on a monotonously regular basis.

“Medicare is a government run system. By definition therefore it is financially profligate and inefficient.”

Well no. On of the most privatised health system in the world is the US and the worst for results per dollar spent.

Life expectancy graphed against per capita spend compared to other OECD countries is abominable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

I know you will not acknowledge the reality but it is there for all to see. On the issue of providing healthcare government systems far outstrip those of the private sector.

You claimed “Medicare of course relies heavily on that portion of the population who have private health insurance and access private facilities that alleviate the pressure on the public system.”

No it doesn’t which is something that has been known for years:

“A 10 percent reduction in rebates is expected to yield net savings of $215 million each year, as the savings from reducing the subsidy ($359 million) are higher than the expected increase in government spending on public hospitals ($144 million). On the whole, savings from reducing spending on rebates outweigh the predicted increase in public hospital costs by roughly a factor of 2.5.”
http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/policy-briefs/result?paper=2168182

Do catch up son.

As usual SR tries to re-orientate the debate and then attacks others based on the re-orientation.

I said nothing about the relative efficacy of Medicare as opposed to other nations. SR does that and then tries to assert error.

And as usual SR narrows an almost infinitely complex issue in one set of numbers that he likes and then treats those numbers as the only issue. Of course, it is well known that the US spends enormous amounts on health. That says nothing about the efficacy or otherwise of Australia's system despite SR's fantasies. There are several other causes for the US costs (did I mention that this issue is almost infinitely complex?) for example the general litigiousness of the US legal system as well as the extra costs the US incurs due to the high number of so-called refugees entering the system and seeking free-health care. (there are also a not inconsiderable number of Canadians seeking timely health care not available in their nationalised system).

But again comparing countries (especial via one metric) is a fool's errand and says nothing about the relative efficiency of Medicare. One only needs to be involved in that labyrinthine edifice for a short time to see how bureaucratically overloaded it is.

Three month scripts sounds strange to me, my scripts are the first & 5 repeats, so 6 months. Getting scripts from my doctor costs the public nothing. I ring, tell them what I need in replacement scripts, & pick them up a couple of days later at $5 each.

I have an annual drivers licence examination along with a full check up. No bulk billing doctors that I know of in my town, my check up costs about $90 from memory. They send me a blood test form, to be done a few days before my check up. At least that is free, but I have to buy those little sample jars from the local chemist at $5 each from memory. Expensive damn jars in my opinion.

Medicare is just like the NDIS. Most of the money is wasted on the wrong people, typically government.

"Getting scripts from my doctor costs the public nothing. "

I suspect you'll find that the doc still bills Medicare for their a telephone consultation.

"At least that -blood test] is free,"
Again, they charge Medicare direct.

Its actually part of the reason for the waste in the health system. People don't see the actual costs and therefore have no reason to reduce the wastage.

"Its actually part of the reason for the waste in the health system. People don't see the actual costs and therefore have no reason to reduce the wastage."

How do you want people to "see". There no more waste in a big government organisation, than there is in a big private organisation. The fact that all the "juicy plums" that governments have produced over the years have been sold off to private enterprise by conservative politicians with an ideological bent against public ownership, and generally sold at a fire sale price. This selling off of profitable assets, or using slight of hand to make unprofitable services magically appear profitable for the buyer is common.

The public are simply left to carry the can of non profit public assets, and at the same time prop up the profitability of sold off services.

Paul,

So you agree Medicare is inefficient. And try to make excuses for that.

"There no more waste in a big government organisation, than there is in a big private organisation."

That's sorta, kinda true although I suspect you have little understanding of what goes on in private organisations. But big anything has a tendency toward inefficient. That's why government services should be decentralised as much as possible. But that goes against the ideological wishes of the left and of course of bureaucracy.

mhaze,

"you have little understanding of what goes on in private organisations" A statement without fact.

No just worked for such organisations for 30 years, and I ran a small (service) business with two employees, sometimes 3, for 3 years, so what's your credentials? There is waste and inefficiencies in all businesses, big and small, government and private. Most compensate for losses caused by inefficiencies by loading the cost onto the customer. But if you're so bad you can't do that, then its curtains.

I got a lifetime supply of my psoriasis medication from an agricultural chemical company in northern China for just under $900 AU, which included delivery to my door. It has been a first line treatment in Germany since the mid nineties but it is not available in Australia to treat psoriasis, but it is available in Australia to treat RRMS. I got it cheaply as it is also an industrial chemical used to suppress the growth of mold. Incidentally, the 25 kg bag of drug I bought was the equivalent of about $2 million worth of ms drugs a few years ago. The profitability of some drugs is astonishing.

Hi Fester,

When you say a lifetime supply, does it have a "use by date". Is it effective after a long period on the shelf? Glad you were able to save by buying elsewhere in China.

I see the government wants pharmacist to be able to issue two months supply of medication under the PBS instead of one. Chemist are up in arms about the proposal as I assume it would save the government a fee. BTW the big money in the pharmacy business is in the dispensing of drugs, not the overpriced rubbish like vitamins on the shelf.

My wife is a believer in "Chinese" treatments, herbal medicine and massage, at 73 she is a picture of health, only visiting her western doctor who btw is Asian, for a 6 month check up with blood tests.

The wife has a 'Moringa' tea every morning, claims it is an excellent plant with a number of beneficial properties. It is now packaged and sold in shops, but the wife still likes to get hers fresh from an Indian man who has it growing.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319916

Hi Paul,

I am glad your wife has found useful drugs for herself, but I am very grateful for Medicare as well, as I need regular blood tests and care from my GP. I would also point out that pharmaceutical companies control the complimentary and alternative medicine market. It is highly profitable for them and carries no pesky constraints like proving efficacy. Most cam is fortunately harmless, but I have heard of things like turmeric concentrates causing serious bleeds in people. As with my self sourced industrial chemical, drugs with good efficacy often have risks and require medical oversight and regulation.

"When you say a lifetime supply, does it have a "use by date". Is it effective after a long period on the shelf? Glad you were able to save by buying elsewhere in China."

The chemical I have is crystalline and looks like sugar. Quite stable but it sublimates (very slowly), so I keep it in a sealed container.

The government should be more concerned about 'supply chains' and where our medications are coming from. China I suspect.

I have two medicines that are vital to me: one absolutely necessary for my survival, which have been hard to get for months now. When they do turn up,they are rationed, or a super-dooper off PBS, very expensive substitute might be available.

The pharmacist doesn't know what's going on, and the you-beaut health minister has ignored my enquiries.