Its an attempt to bring in a user pays medicare scheme , gather the data & see whos using it the most , cross check on assets ..bingo you pay more .
Its no secret the coalition favour smaller gov and want to privatise medicare , they had a committee looking at medicare but it got busted at the last election , pack of sneaky dogs not to be trusted .
Select to expand quotebazz61 said..
Its an attempt to bring in a user pays medicare scheme , gather the data & see whos using it the most , cross check on assets ..bingo you pay more .
Its no secret the coalition favour smaller gov and want to privatise medicare , they had a committee looking at medicare but it got busted at the last election , pack of sneaky dogs not to be trusted .
Or it could just be a well meaning but ill thought out plan. Either way the balls rolling now.
Select to expand quoteSubsonic said..bazz61 said..
Its an attempt to bring in a user pays medicare scheme , gather the data & see whos using it the most , cross check on assets ..bingo you pay more .
Its no secret the coalition favour smaller gov and want to privatise medicare , they had a committee looking at medicare but it got busted at the last election , pack of sneaky dogs not to be trusted .
Or it could just be a well meaning but ill thought out plan. Either way the balls rolling now.
hopefully your are right ..but on the Liberals record of privatising data/ access I seriously doubt it .
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/29/privatising-asic-database-not-a-done-deal-coalition-says
Also privatising Visa applications /fees they recently bumped up visa fees quite significantly , be a good earner for some Tory trough feeder ...
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/26/fears-privatised-visa-system-could-see-access-to-australia-sold-to-highest-bidder
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
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?
Let me just go back and check whether I wrote "competitive market"....oh look! I did!
Google "Ordoliberalism".
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..
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?
Let me just go back and check whether I wrote "competitive market"....oh look! I did!
Google "Ordoliberalism".
Yes, and my suggestion of an oligopoly is that its not really a competitive market. Just because you gave an example of how things run in a competitive environment doesn't mean that this is one.
When you do Google ordoliberalism, it comes back with an article that includes 'Since the 1960s ordoliberal influence on economics and jurisprudence has significantly diminished'. Which to me suggests that it has fallen by the wayside.
Select to expand quoteRails said..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.AUS1111 said..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.
Well said.
AUS1111's comments are rock solid. In a perfectly competitive market, the price for a product is set by the market not the seller; so in order to create more profit, the seller must make their business process more efficient. In this case, the insurer will be using the member's health data to more accurately predict their outgoings/costs and therefore adapt/change their business to make more profit. They may pass this efficiency on to the members in order to get the jump on their competitors and gain market share; but then again they may not and would simply pocket the cash. So to answer FN's original question, unless the insurer somehow guarantees that they will pass all or some of the efficiencies onto the members, then no ........... you will not be better off ............... and if you do hand over the info, you may end up with a security issue with your personal medical data being in possession of yet another entity that could be breached.
I will listening to ABC FM today for the first time in a long time. They were discussing this.
A personal injury lawyer is arguing against this, and his point is that even if the insurance companies aren't allowed to access this data by default, they may begin to pressure you to hand over your username and password to them so that they can check for themselves.
This sounds believable, as I can imagine them saying 'give us access and we can lower your premiums', or 'if you don't give us access then by default we won't cover you', or 'if you don't give us access we will add a surcharge to your premium'.
To me, this sounds like it is very likely, unless, as he said, the legislation covers these attempts to misuse the data. He was strong in his opinion that if you don't take care of these scenarios, something will pop up, and the data will become available.
He argued the same point I believe in, in that insurance is pooled so that the people in the pool and the insurance companies use statistics to know what the likelihood is of particular problems. Not so that individuals can be targeted.
He was even suggesting that employers may insist on you providing access so that their insurance companies can then get access to the data in case you represent too high a risk.
Before, I hadn't considered it, and I think the benefits for medical professionals is worthwhile, but for the first time I am considering opting out, at least until the government treat this with a bit more caution.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
When you do Google ordoliberalism, it comes back with an article that includes 'Since the 1960s ordoliberal influence on economics and jurisprudence has significantly diminished'. Which to me suggests that it has fallen by the wayside.
Thank you for taking up my suggestion of Googling. I don't know what result you were looking at but the concept is still alive and kicking- I can assure you. Maybe try Googling again in German
Anyway, the (perhaps obscure) point is that competition is at the very heart of capitalism, but there is a clear role for government to ensure the economy is indeed competitive and does not fall prey to monopolistic tendencies and other forms of market failure. I don't believe we are in disagreement on that . So...
In a competitive environment a company cannot raise prices to generate a profit, so the reason why a "for-profit" business can compete with a NFP can only be because it performs its economic function more efficiently - and that is good.
And yes that is all theory and things are far more complicated in the real world but I believe you asked a question along those lines, so there is your answer (and don't listen to Adriano). 
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Did they teach that where you went to school?
well......I have [not so] fond memories of teachers waving Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, and throwing quotes from it at us
Select to expand quotesn said..FormulaNova said..
Did they teach that where you went to school?
well......I have [not so] fond memories of teachers waving Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, and throwing quotes from it at us
Really? Is that where you grew up?
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..
When you do Google ordoliberalism, it comes back with an article that includes 'Since the 1960s ordoliberal influence on economics and jurisprudence has significantly diminished'. Which to me suggests that it has fallen by the wayside.
In a competitive environment a company cannot raise prices to generate a profit, so the reason why a "for-profit" business can compete with a NFP can only be because it performs its economic function more efficiently - and that is good.
And yes that is all theory and things are far more complicated in the real world but I believe you asked a question along those lines, so there is your answer (and don't listen to Adriano).
Yes, I guess when you boil it down to that, a for-profit business must be more efficient than a NFP in order to perform the same function and deliver a profit. Perhaps the NFPs are not very efficient or the services delivered are not that different that it draws sufficient customers?
With health care, I wonder if the prices that are asked for by doctors drags everyone up to meet that price? I mean, if all of the doctors are charging a certain rate, or almost all the doctors, does this pull up the same costs for the NFPs?
One thing about the health records being available to insurers is the people who are obese, diabetic and history of heart problems may be in for a shock.
I don't agree with all the records being available as there are some sensitive issues surrounding mental health and attempted suicide that employers would avoid employing people if they knew about.
I just wanted the thread to come up to remind those who haven't opted out yet that you are running out of time.
Soon your past GPs will be given incentives to upload info about the consultations you thought were private.
Then when the bank demands access to it before you get a loan, or before you next job interview, insurance, or even claiming travel insurance you had better hope the diagnosis and lables you have been allocated dont screw up your life.
Thats appart from all the government workers, health workers, police etc who just get automatic access.
Next time you ask for codeine for a headache pray you don't get labled "drug seeking" .
Better stop screwing around too because you path swabs get uploaded too!
And what ever you do dont admit to depression.
and hope there haven't been and errors or mistakes because you will end up owning that too.
If this was truely for the sick and elderly, why not just offer it to people on chronic health plans, or when they attend Emergency.
Conspiracy theory anyone?
Select to expand quoteHeavy1 said..
If this was truely for the sick and elderly, why not just offer it to people on chronic health plans, or when they attend Emergency.
Conspiracy theory anyone?
I subscribe to the theory that you can't assume conspiracy when its more likely incompetence and laziness.
It seems like a good idea, as long as the data is controlled and restricted, but they seem to do the easy bit and ignore the hard bit. I can imagine some public servant somewhere going 'nah, that bit's not too important and I can't be bothered'.
There was something in the media the other day about an insurance company deciding that a new cancer was a pre-existing condition for someone that survived cancer when they were much younger. Is that the sort of behavior this new data will create?
Sorry I haven't read every post on this thread, but if anyone is suggesting American style healthcare run as fast as you can in the other direction. Our healthcare is ostensibly run on capitalist principles but all it seems to do efficiently is create a lot of well paid administrative positions and a massive bureaucracy that is expensive to the users.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
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.
FWIW - it would be very odd for a private health company to not have a good understanding of your health status...
When I was in IT on contract at a private hospital, the person in admin worth their weight in a very precious metal was the medical coder..
The codes used were chosen to extract the maximum from the health fund but essentially mapped the treatment.. it was less obvious for co-morbidity issues. So apart from emergency department visits (very few are run in private hospitals) a private patient maps their health by asking for insurance claims (directly or indirectly)..
Access to the written notes would help your insurer where they carry details of generational information if there is a disputed or court case.
So go on-line and define your privacy settings..
I find that the best laid plans of mice or men are often thwarted by common practice of an individual which bye-passes the plan...
I went for a sleep test via GP referral... I asked for a copy of the emailed referral and yep the tech's had my medical record 
... So private / privacy and all the public arousal on this issue is..... commonly made available through another door..
Cheers
AP
The problem I have heard is anyone will be able to access your records so if you go to a physio they will be able to see all of your history
Select to expand quoteLittle Jon said..
The problem I have heard is anyone will be able to access your records so if you go to a physio they will be able to see all of your history
I'd have no probs with medical professionals being able to view it for my benefit, anyone else, no.
There's far too much potential for it to be used for the wrong reasons.
