I was reading in the SMH that the CEO of NIB wants access to its members health records. Supposedly to improve services.
Does anyone believe this?
"
Mr Fitzgibbon is hoping the fund can get permission from its 1.5 million customers to access their individual My Health Record data before 2020.Private health insurers say this data could be a way to manage higher health insurance claims being made by an ageing population and associated rising premiums, while critics warn the data may result in more exclusions and less access."We are moving to this world in which we're able to, like never before, predict, prevent and better manage or better treat diseases based on knowledge we have of your individual health profile," Mr Fitzgibbon said.
"
I wouldn't be so cynical about it except health fund costs have gone up every year. Its not like they seem to be managing it well, and when they can get premium rises, they do. Its like asking an employee to improve their performance every year, but giving them a pay rise no matter what. in fact, its like giving all your employees pay rises, so they are all the same.
Where are we heading? Is it going to be the case where you have a history of some disease, so your premiums become astronomical?
There was something on 'The Last Leg' the other day about how successful the NHS has been in the UK. If they can get is right, why are we heading down the road to privatised health insurance, with insurance companies in the driving seat?
FWIW, I like that all my medical records are available to the doctors, and the hospital. It saves a lot of hassle. I do get nervous though when its the insurance companies that are asking for access to that information.
As long as you are not sick you'll be fine
We are privatising health and other services so that a few, already very rich men and women, can make a profit from the masses.
It is politically palatable because it is done in the name of efficiency and cost savings i.e. If the collective make, own and run the service then they collectively bear the costs both of providing and using the service. Since historically the use cost has been close to zero, which is what we call free universal health care, the collective cost appears high.
So imagine your joy, as the treasurer, when a wealthy man comes along and is willing to bear the costs of providing the service with a proviso, that the public, as individuals, only pay the cost of using the service. You wipe out a giant budget post which you can then spend on subsidising the business of other wealthy men.
This individual use cost however now has to be greater than the cost of service provision in order to create profit, so premiums rise as the cost of services rise or as more people use them.
So, as stated earlier we all individually pay more to create private profits which accrue to a very few.
I don't know if it's my imagination but the list of items covered with HCF gold extras seems to have shrunk considerably. If it wasn't for dental i'd give it the flick but as it happens were ahead on that one.
In a way it's good to have all your medical history in one place as it gives hospitals and doctors a quick view of your medical history.
Would not be happy however for anyone else to have access. Police , health care funds etc have no business looking at them.
According to the health providers I have spoken to, health records will be sold to unscrupulous agencies. Can't remember the rest. Sorry.
I remember, it is being sold to health insurance companies who then will be able to change the rules for each individual, depending on what they may cost the insurance mobs, based on your health record.
This came from various GPs
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
There was something on 'The Last Leg' the other day about how successful the NHS has been in the UK. If they can get is right, why are we heading down the road to privatised health insurance, with insurance companies in the driving seat?
The biggest health fund in WA is a not-for-profit. There are still public companies that successfully compete against it, deriving efficiencies from scale, among other things.
FormulaNova said..
There was something on 'The Last Leg' the other day about how successful the NHS has been in the UK. If they can get is right, why are we heading down the road to privatised health insurance, with insurance companies in the driving seat?
The NHS is very similar to Medicare...NHS is more generous than ours, and open to all in UK - even visitors.
But still people in NHS are subject to waiting lists and priorities the same as Medicare. They still have private health insurance for those who wish to not wait, get private rooms etc. But there is I believe no Govt incentive to encourage people to take, as there is in OZ.
Select to expand quoteAgent nods said..
FormulaNova said..
There was something on 'The Last Leg' the other day about how successful the NHS has been in the UK. If they can get is right, why are we heading down the road to privatised health insurance, with insurance companies in the driving seat?
The NHS is very similar to Medicare...NHS is more generous than ours, and open to all in UK - even visitors.
But still people in NHS are subject to waiting lists and priorities the same as Medicare. They still have private health insurance for those who wish to not wait, get private rooms etc. But there is I believe no Govt incentive to encourage people to take, as there is in OZ.
Yes agreed. I lived in the UK for three years. Other than elective surgery waiting times, the NHS service is first class. As good as Medicare but more comprehensive.
I opted out of health insurance completely three years ago. I'm now about $4,500 ahead at last calculation, including all dental work and physio.
Except in the case of an ongoing health condition, private health insurance is a waste of money.
I also opted out of My Health record last week.
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..
There was something on 'The Last Leg' the other day about how successful the NHS has been in the UK. If they can get is right, why are we heading down the road to privatised health insurance, with insurance companies in the driving seat?
The biggest health fund in WA is a not-for-profit. There are still public companies that successfully compete against it, deriving efficiencies from scale, among other things.
I generally try and join the not-for-profit companies. I am in one currently.
I was a member of NIB when it used to shout from the rooftops that it was not-for-profit. I always thought the idea that all profits go back into the business was a great one. I still do.
Then someone smart in NIB decided they wanted to get rich and they demutualised and became yet another profit based insurance company.
What I don't understand is how not-for-profits end up charging almost the same as any other profit based insurance company.
I think this creates a problem. The not for profits need to keep chasing customers exactly the same as any other insurance company, so they load up with the exact same features that the others do, and also need to increase the rates every year. How does that work? You would think that if they didn't need as much profit that they would be able to keep their rates down and attract even more customers.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..AUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..
There was something on 'The Last Leg' the other day about how successful the NHS has been in the UK. If they can get is right, why are we heading down the road to privatised health insurance, with insurance companies in the driving seat?
The biggest health fund in WA is a not-for-profit. There are still public companies that successfully compete against it, deriving efficiencies from scale, among other things.
I generally try and join the not-for-profit companies. I am in one currently.
I was a member of NIB when it used to shout from the rooftops that it was not-for-profit. I always thought the idea that all profits go back into the business was a great one. I still do.
Then someone smart in NIB decided they wanted to get rich and they demutualised and became yet another profit based insurance company.
What I don't understand is how not-for-profits end up charging almost the same as any other profit based insurance company.
I think this creates a problem. The not for profits need to keep chasing customers exactly the same as any other insurance company, so they load up with the exact same features that the others do, and also need to increase the rates every year. How does that work? You would think that if they didn't need as much profit that they would be able to keep their rates down and attract even more customers.
The NFP insurance companies rely on the gullibility of their customers. They have to provide a point of difference. Making no profit whilst remaining soluble is actually harder than it sounds and this takes skill and time.....
I opted out. There's a reason why medical practices still use fax machines for records transfers.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..FormulaNova said..AUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..
There was something on 'The Last Leg' the other day about how successful the NHS has been in the UK. If they can get is right, why are we heading down the road to privatised health insurance, with insurance companies in the driving seat?
The biggest health fund in WA is a not-for-profit. There are still public companies that successfully compete against it, deriving efficiencies from scale, among other things.
I generally try and join the not-for-profit companies. I am in one currently.
I was a member of NIB when it used to shout from the rooftops that it was not-for-profit. I always thought the idea that all profits go back into the business was a great one. I still do.
Then someone smart in NIB decided they wanted to get rich and they demutualised and became yet another profit based insurance company.
What I don't understand is how not-for-profits end up charging almost the same as any other profit based insurance company.
I think this creates a problem. The not for profits need to keep chasing customers exactly the same as any other insurance company, so they load up with the exact same features that the others do, and also need to increase the rates every year. How does that work? You would think that if they didn't need as much profit that they would be able to keep their rates down and attract even more customers.
The NFP insurance companies rely on the gullibility of their customers. They have to provide a point of difference. Making no profit whilst remaining soluble is actually harder than it sounds and this takes skill and time.....
I sort of assumed, and still do, that their 'profit' in the 'not-for-profit' meant building up a profit that just sat there, but there was no profit for shareholders or directors. The profit would be used to provide a buffer for operating.
I think this is probably what you are saying.
I suspect that when this buffer builds up over time, as it should if they are efficient, then they start to get a little bit more generous with their spending and either spend more on their customers (probably least likely) or start paying themselves more (probably more likely). I am cynical when it comes to some of these people that sit on boards, and I think voting themselves pay rises is always on the table even for not-for-profits.
Either way, does anyone think that your healthfund having access to not only your records, but all the records of every other member, will lead to an improved service or the ability to selectively charge you more?
"I'm sorry Mr Smith, but it does seem like you had cancer back in 1997, so we can't really cover you for this new one, even though its a different type. Perhaps we can interest you in our top-top-gold-level-extra-extras cover?"
No not really. NFP is just code for "we're not totally beholden to the board's interests or the interests of the shareholders."
The best NFP fund is Medicare.
I always try to figure out the motivation for an action. Insurance is based on risk, risk is based on knowledge of the unknown. It would be reasonable to expect that if an insurer had more knowledge, then they could expose themselves to less risk depending on the individual. Risk must be compensated, so a lower risk should come at a lower cost and premiums could drop.
Excluding people from cover could be a bit of an issue though and regulation may solve this. But then I wonder whether we'd be back to square one. If you regulate the industry then there's no real need to have the data because the pricing and conditions are all set by the regulator and there's no advantage to be had by getting better knowledge other than being able to predict profit/return a little better.
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
I always try to figure out the motivation for an action. Insurance is based on risk, risk is based on knowledge of the unknown. It would be reasonable to expect that if an insurer had more knowledge, then they could expose themselves to less risk depending on the individual. Risk must be compensated, so a lower risk should come at a lower cost and premiums could drop.
Sounds reasonable, but when does that really happen in the real world?
At best, premiums stay steady for a bit as the new info is digested, the risk is re-calibrated and then the premiums hike again the following year.
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
I always try to figure out the motivation for an action. Insurance is based on risk, risk is based on knowledge of the unknown. It would be reasonable to expect that if an insurer had more knowledge, then they could expose themselves to less risk depending on the individual. Risk must be compensated, so a lower risk should come at a lower cost and premiums could drop.
I think this is why actuaries exist, so that companies can work out the probabilities and costs of certain events. They should then set the price accordingly.
If you lower it to really simple motivations, which is probably normal human behavior, insurance companies will actively reduce their risk by not covering people at all or covering them at a price that discourages customers.
We are already in a situation where the government actively pushes us to private health insurance by making it cheaper than paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge. They then lobby for increases in premiums every year, and as far as I know, they get them.
So, why do you think insurance companies will want this data? It won't be to drop premiums, as this is not going to happen in an environment where they are already increasing every year.
To be able to better report profit I reckon, if you don't use it to assess risk and adjust premiums. If you can more accurately asses your exposure to risk then you should be able to more accurately predict profit.
Even if we opt out, i can see the insurance companies (when they inevitably get their hands on the data) maximising the premiums for people whove opted out, because "we don't know what kind of a risk you pose to us"
the more people who opt out the better i think.
So? Opt out of private health insurance too. That's the only way to get value for money - Medicare.
It was a good idea... but big business and the good old "chasing profit at all costs" has yet again broken it.
Is this why we cant have nice things?
www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Care.data+
Apparently typing this^ URL is too hard for our politicians...
My Health Record
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/16/my-health-record-privacy-cybersecurity-and-the-hacking-risk
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/there-is-no-social-license-for-my-health-record-australians-should-reject-it
My Health Record privacy framework 'identical' to failed UK scheme, expert says
Care.data was cancelled because drug and insurance companies were able to buy patient data
My Health Record is a digital medical record that stores medical data and shares it between medical providers. In the UK, a similar system called care.data was announced in 2014, but cancelled in 2016 after an investigation found that drug and insurance companies were able to buy information on patients' mental health conditions, diseases and smoking habits.
The man in charge of implementing My Health Record in Australia, Tim Kelsey, was also in charge of setting up care.data.
Phil Booth, the coordinator of British privacy group Medconfidential, said the similarities were "extraordinary" and he expected the same privacy breaches to occur."The parallels are incredible," he said. "It looks like it is repeating itself, almost like a rewind or a replay. The context has changed but what is plainly obvious to us from the other side of the planet, is that this system seems to be the 2018 replica of the 2014 care.data."
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/22/my-health-record-identical-to-failed-uk-scheme-privacy-expert-says
Care.data: How did it go so wrong?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26259101
NHS data-sharing project scrapped
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36723486
NHS Care.data information scheme 'mishandled'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27069553
NHS England sets out the next steps of public awareness about care.data
The Care.Data Programme closed in 2016
www.england.nhs.uk/2013/10/care-data/
"Your data is safe with us" they say... nek minit..
Singapore personal data hack hits 1.5m, health authority says
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44900507
Even their PMs data isnt safe..
www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/1507090/1-5m-health-records-hacked-in-singapore
If the census was anything to go by, no. In fact everything to do with data retention, this mob just can't be trusted.
Select to expand quoteSubsonic said..
Even if we opt out, i can see the insurance companies (when they inevitably get their hands on the data) maximising the premiums for people whove opted out, because "we don't know what kind of a risk you pose to us"
the more people who opt out the better i think.
I think this is where it gets difficult. In theory, if the data is shared only with health practitioners and hospitals, then it should be okay, as they will have policies where they can't discriminate against people based on that data.
On the other hand, if insurance companies get this data and then use it, it becomes a tool for them and encourages more people to opt out of what should be a good idea for everyone.
Health insurance should be about 'them' trying to work out their own statistics and setting premiums this way. If we just hand over our data to them, then it becomes easy for them to cherrypick the low cost customers and ignore the high cost customers. If you think this is a good thing then you are fortunate, but what about the people that just happen to have bad health history through no fault of their own?
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
So? Opt out of private health insurance too. That's the only way to get value for money - Medicare.
If/when it happens, im sure that'll be what comes of it. In a game the guberment started where theyd like us all to be privately insured, they may have just shot themselves in the foot.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Subsonic said..
Even if we opt out, i can see the insurance companies (when they inevitably get their hands on the data) maximising the premiums for people whove opted out, because "we don't know what kind of a risk you pose to us"
the more people who opt out the better i think.
I think this is where it gets difficult. In theory, if the data is shared only with health practitioners and hospitals, then it should be okay, as they will have policies where they can't discriminate against people based on that data.
On the other hand, if insurance companies get this data and then use it, it becomes a tool for them and encourages more people to opt out of what should be a good idea for everyone.
Health insurance should be about 'them' trying to work out their own statistics and setting premiums this way. If we just hand over our data to them, then it becomes easy for them to cherrypick the low cost customers and ignore the high cost customers. If you think this is a good thing then you are fortunate, but what about the people that just happen to have bad health history through no fault of their own?
I agree.
On the face of it, it makes a lot of sense for medical professionals to be able to have online access to our medical history.
If only it were that simple.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
What I don't understand is how not-for-profits end up charging almost the same as any other profit based insurance company.
Well I guess a lot of people think that capitalism its about customers having to pay more so that the business can make a profit, when in reality in a competitive market, businesses make a profit by getting the job done more efficiently.
It's just incredible that so many people don't get that - I don't know what they teach in school these days....
Go for it Adriano...
That's the orthodox capitalist view also espoused by those who privatised our very efficient public utilities and it is just not borne out by the facts.
Just look how cheap electricity is! 
LOL AUS.
Medicare is measurably a more efficient investment per patient outcome and per dollar invested than the bloated, for profit private care health system, underpinned by thousands of middle management insurance pen pushers, marketing bullshxt artists and a never ending shareholder's thirst for profits.
Go for it...
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
On the other hand, if when insurance companies get this data and then use it, it becomes a tool for them and encourages more people to opt out of what should be a good idea for everyone.
Health insurance should be about 'them' trying to work out their own statistics and setting premiums this way. If we just hand over our data to them, then it becomes easy for them to cherrypick the low cost customers and ignore the high cost customers. If you think this is a good thing then you are fortunate, but what about the people that just happen to have bad health history through no fault of their own?
A lot of medical issues are now detectable via genetics, your DNA will be sequenced and you will not be covered for "pre existing conditions".
I've recently found out that I've been misdiagnosed for an issue for the last 15 years... but my policy's still exclude a number of things based on an issue, I don't have... go figure.
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..
What I don't understand is how not-for-profits end up charging almost the same as any other profit based insurance company.
Well I guess a lot of people think that capitalism its about customers having to pay more so that the business can make a profit, when in reality in a competitive market, businesses make a profit by getting the job done more efficiently.
It's just incredible that so many people don't get that - I don't know what they teach in school these days....
Go for it Adriano...
Privatisation of the means of producing capital is a tenet of capitalism, private owners make decisions based on higher profits, business growth, and market share i.e. returns to shareholders.
There is nothing inherently efficient about that other than that the decision making criteria rarely takes into account, let alone compensates for, the resources, energy and lives wasted. If these do not effect private profit then these are known as externalities and the cost is borne by society at large and the environment.
It is worth noting that as the global energy return on energy invested continues its long decline, the average standard of living only rose during the last two or three generations because of rising household debt.
The only thing capitalism is really any good at is consuming the resources of the future today through fractionally reserved debt arrangements. I think you will find that while mainstream politicians preach jobs and growth, schools are teaching about mountains of plastic in the ocean, mass global coral deaths, accelerating species eradication, global warming, ERoEI, and the impossibility of infinite growth based on the consumption of a finite natural resource stocks.
Maybe read some **** before spouting that stupid party line that the market will fix everything through efficiency. The market has effectively and efficiently gotten us to the brink of system collapse while espousing the every known social corruption as a virtue.
Rails, do you know who the "market" actually is? It's us .......... you, me, everyone else. The "market" is in control because it is all of us, we are the "market".
I agree AUS1111, business; like most people; hates the unknown and wants to be able to predict the future. This data is just business intelligence gathered to help their business function with better economic efficiency. ie they can more accurately predict costs in order to more accurately predict profit. It could still be used to exclude people from cover, but the primary objective will be business function. It would remain to be seen whether they would ever pass the savings back down to the members, but if we were to say that the industry is getting close to being perfectly competitive, then they would be silly not to because it would give them greater market share which is the aim of all insurers.
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..
What I don't understand is how not-for-profits end up charging almost the same as any other profit based insurance company.
Well I guess a lot of people think that capitalism its about customers having to pay more so that the business can make a profit, when in reality in a competitive market, businesses make a profit by getting the job done more efficiently.
It's just incredible that so many people don't get that - I don't know what they teach in school these days....
Go for it Adriano...
I guess others have answered this anyway.
When I was in school more than 20 years ago, I did 3U economics, with a great teacher, and they taught us about oligopolies and duopolies amongst other things.
Did they teach that where you went to school?
It's not that I have a problem with the concept of My Health Record, but the execution has been appalling. To manage change, you need to educate, not surprise people! Now it seems that apps, such as Health engine have access to your data.
These guys have been exposed as less than ideal data custodians recently
www.itnews.com.au/news/healthengine-reveals-data-breach-496175
www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-25/healthengine-sharing-patients-information-with-lawyers/9894114
The government should be ashamed of this implementation. Accenture are the main contractor for this system and after recent failings with the ATO and who can remember the Census, I do not trust this system at all. Opt out until this mess is cleaned up. The loophole cleanup is still not adequate. 5 days to clean up your act if caught sharing data. You could copy the whole database in that time!
www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-24/digital-health-agency-changes-my-health-record-app-contracts/10026644
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
That's the orthodox capitalist view also espoused by those who privatised our very efficient public utilities and it is just not borne out by the facts.
Just look how cheap electricity is! LOL AUS.
Medicare is measurably a more efficient investment per patient outcome and per dollar invested than the bloated, for profit private care health system, underpinned by thousands of middle management insurance pen pushers, marketing bullshxt artists and a never ending shareholder's thirst for profits.
Go for it...
Maybe because this is Crony Capitalism. The State sells off the State owned monopoly utility as a privately owned monopoly utility with laws in place prohibiting competition. The price the State sells the utility off is higher. The wages of those working in the utility goes up. The private investor will attempt to get the highest return possible from their investment.
As the investment is a monopoly the price they charge is usually set by the "Regulator". The Regulator is usually made up of industry experts, former politicians, bureaucrats. All are friends of the owner of the monopoly. The Regulator normally accepts whatever excuse is given to raise the price such as building stuff, bad weather, the moon is made out of green cheese, etc etc etc. Thus the price the consumer pays keeps going up and up.
There is a fair chance all this MyGov stuff will be sold off in the future as another privately owned monopoly to some "friend" of the State. It sucks.
