Search

Millions of Australians use the private health system every year. They should receive safe, high-quality, value-based care. However, poor policy and inadequate regulation of medical technology is driving low-value care at great expense to consumers and the broader health system. Key drivers include the Prescribed List of Medical Devices and Human Tissue, gaps in quality and safety controls for devices being used, and marketing and conflicts of interest. All of these should be addressed to reduce low-value care in Australia's private health system, so consumers are protected from harm and limited health budgets are used effectively. What is known about the topic? With health expenditure rising unsustainably, there is a growing focus on ways to reduce low-value care to improve health outcomes and eliminate unnecessary costs. What does this paper add? This paper details drivers of low-value care in Australia's private health system and recommendations to overcome them. Drivers include the Prescribed List of Medical Devices, gaps in safety and quality controls, and conflicts of interest and marketing. What are the implications for practitioners? These insights are relevant to clinicians, researchers, policymakers, consumers and health business leaders with an interest in low-value care. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As we review health governance during the COVID-19 pandemic, we have an opportunity to reflect on these processes and ensure that future challenges might be managed in a more collaborative and whole of system response. This 'Perspective' reviews COVID-19 responses in Australia, reflects on a number of potential solutions that have been developed by organisations over the past two decades and proffers a governance framework for a Communicable Disease and Pandemic Management Authority that might assist health responses to future challenges. What is known about the topic? Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic were at best disorganised with multiple failures at almost every level. Reflecting on these responses is essential if we are to perform better in future health and societal crises, which will inevitably occur. What does this paper add? This paper summarises a number of organisational 'structures' and discussion documents that have been developed over the past decades which might be useful starting points for development of a structure(s) that would leave Australia in a better position when the next 'wave' hits. What are the implications for practitioners? Good governance is fundamental to how we do business and the complexities of the health and welfare system(s) only compound these challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. This study aimed to estimate costs of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) to patients, government and Australian society. Methods. Australian ME/ CFS patients and their carers were recruited using convenience sampling. Patients completed an online retrospective cost diary, providing ME/CFS-related direct medical, non-medical and indirect costs. Informal care costs were collected directly from carers. Data from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare Benefits Schedule were linked to participant survey data. Annual per patient and total societal costs were estimated, broken down by category and presented in 2021 AUD. Factors associated with higher costs were investigated using generalised linear models. Results. One hundred and seventy five patients (mean age 49 years s.d. 14, 79.4% female) completed the cost diary. Estimated total annual societal costs of ME/CFS in Australia ranged between $1.38 and $10.09 billion, with average annual total costs of $63 400/patient. Three-quarters of these costs were due to indirect costs ($46 731). Disability severity was the key factor associated with higher costs, particularly for indirect costs (being 2.27-fold higher for severe disability than no/mild disability). Conclusions. ME/CFS poses a significant economic burden in Australia, owing mainly to high indirect and informal care costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]