[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Of their household costs, survey respondents identified private health insurance as their most pressing cost concern (80%), beating fuel (78%) and electricity (74%).[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]“With premiums set to rise again on April 1, time is running out to avoid health insurance rip- offs. You only have a couple of weeks to take action on your health insurance,” says CHOICE consumer advocate Jonathan Brown.
“Private health insurance has officially taken over energy as the most pressing household cost concern. Since the introduction of the new Gold, Silver and Bronze health tiers last year, CHOICE’s experts have been doing deep analysis and crunching the numbers to help cut through the confusion.”
CHOICE has released a 5 step action plan to help Australians before the April 1 price rises:[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”4424″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]“The CHOICE Health Insurance Action Plan is about cutting through the crap. Some commercial comparison sites compare as few as seven health funds. As a non-profit, CHOICE wants to help you make the right decision for you and your loved one’s needs. That includes figuring out if you even need private health insurance.”
The full CHOICE Health Insurance Action Plan is available at: CHOICE.com.au/HealthAction (We’d love a link back if possible)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The ACCC report cities multiple examples where the big corporate insurers have attempted to deny vulnerable Australians access to essential medical treatments, while at the same time raising the price of their premiums.
The report stated that “In 2018-19, private health insurance participants rates continued to decline, while average gap payments for in-hospital and extras treatment increased”.
It also highlighted the fact that “cumulative premium increases have been higher than inflation and wage growth in the past five years, indicating that households with private health insurance are contributing an increasing proportion of their incoming to paying premiums”.
Other industry groups, including the MedTech industry, have slammed the big corporate insurers over their alleged tending ‘policy reform’ as “nothing more than a disturbing attempt to maximise profits over the interests of patients”.
The Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA) has said the likes of Medibank, Bupa, NIB and HCF have already undermined consumer confidence in their own products through their “smash and grab” approach to keep their businesses afloat.
The allegation is supported by the ACCC’s instituted proceedings in the Federal Court in May 2017 against NIB where it alleged “it (NIB) contravened the ACL by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and making false of misleading representations.” The proceeding arose from NIB’s alleged failure to notify members in advance of its decision to remove certain eye procedures from its ‘MediGap Scheme’ in 2015. Under the MediGap Scheme, members had previously been able to obtain these eye procedures without facing out-of-packet costs when doctors participated in the scheme.
“The Federal Government cannot afford for private health insurers to also now undermine patient confidence in their doctors,” MTAA said in a statement on its website.
Its clear this will not only spell and end to private health insurance as we know it, but irreparable damage to Australia’s healthcare system.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (Baxter) has been named among the top 119 companies in Australia for gender equality for a fifth consecutive year.
The Australian Government’s prestigious “Employer of Choice for Gender Equality” citation is awarded to organisations who set the benchmark for gender equality in the workplace.
Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) Director Libby Lyons congratulated Baxter for its continuous focus on diversity and inclusion in the workplace.
“All these organisations are at the forefront of the momentum for change towards gender equality in Australian workplaces,” Ms Lyons said.
“These industry leaders are showing other Australian businesses how to create a better and more equal future for both women and men.
“They are closing their pay gaps and increasing their representation of women in management at a faster rate than other employers in our dataset.”
General Manager Baxter Australia and New Zealand Steven Flynn said Baxter was proud of its unwavering commitment to diversity and inclusion in the workplace.
“Baxter is honoured to be named among the top 119 companies in Australia as a leader in workplace gender equality,” Mr Flynn said.
“We continue to challenge ourselves and our industry to deliver new policies and measurable targets to achieve gender equality across all levels of management.
“Thank you to all our employees at Baxter for taking ownership on this important social and workplace goal.”
In 2019, Baxter was named for a second consecutive year “Women in MedTech Champion” by the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA) for its commitment to promoting gender equality in the medical device industry.
Baxter gender equality policies and practices include:
Proactively supporting women to succeed in leadership roles through accelerated learning programs, networking, mentoring and coaching opportunities.
Employment practices that ensure pay equality based on merit rather than gender.
Actively encouraging men and women to take paid parental leave; recognising the needs of the family unit regardless of gender.
Formal processes for applying for flexible working arrangements, encompassing; part-time work, job sharing and flexible working hours.
Domestic violence leave to support employees and foster a safe and secure workplace.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Mr Burgess said Medibank’s attempts this week to blame medical device usage for its alleged profit downturn flies in the face of APRA data released Tuesday, showing insurer net profit after tax (NPAT) was up 21 per cent in the Dec 19 Qtr from $1.19 billion to $1.44 billion.
Medibank also failed to declare today the upwards of $400 million in direct medical device savings Health Minister Greg Hunt had already delivered private health insurers since 2017.
“It’s comments like these from Medibank today that are destroying consumer and investor confidence in their own products and performance, as well as the broader sector. No wonder they’re in a self-proclaimed ‘death spiral’,” Mr Burgess said.
“Private health insurers haven’t paid one extra cent for medical devices over the past two premium years, despite raising premiums twice-inflation and banking nearly $1 billion in profits between the big corporate health funds, including Medibank.
“It’s not the role of medical devices to keep propping up Medibank’s managerial inaction and incompetence, while they continue to feather their nest with taxpayer handouts and corporate bailouts.
“Medibank’s management seems to routinely fail to understand that timely access to the best and latest medical devices is exactly why their customers put up with years of premium pain. Reducing access will only reduce customers.
“Medibank’s customers have clearly had enough of their premiums increasing faster than house prices with no matching increase in benefits and are finally cashing in their chips before they’re forced out altogether.
“If Medibank can still afford to pay a dividend to its shareholders, it can afford to drop its prices for its customers.”
Mr Burgess also questioned why there was no mention in Medibank’s statement today of the benefits that were about to flow through from recent price cuts on 1 Feb 2020 to over 7000 medical technologies like pacemakers, insulin pumps, eye lenses, hip and knee replacements and more.
“Medical device manufactures have cut their prices upwards of 40 per cent in the past 3 years as a result of the direct lobbying of insurers like Medibank to help reduce premiums and increase access.
“It’s a safe bet that the first private health insurer whose premium increases go below zero will increase their market share overnight.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]An initiative of the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) and operated by MTPConnect, the BTB program is offering up to $1 million to support development and commercialisation of new biological, pharmaceutical, medical and health technology projects.
This is the second round of the BTB program. Round one, announced in December 2019, saw eight projects selected to share in funding of $5.9 million following a competitive application process.
MTPConnect Managing Director and CEO, Dr Dan Grant, says the BTB program is a unique opportunity for Australian innovators to take their research to the next stage along the translation and commercialisation pathway.
“We’re looking to support SMEs and research organisations conducting research projects that provide innovative solutions in any disease area using any therapeutic modality or medical technology,” Dr Grant adds.
“With applications only open for three weeks, from Monday, the Australian research community needs to move quickly to take advantage of the substantial funding on offer.”
MTPConnect is delivering the BTB program in partnership with BioCurate (Melbourne and Monash Universities), UniQuest (University of Queensland), the Medical Device Partnering Program (led by Flinders University) and the Bridge and BridgeTech programs (Queensland University of Technology).
The BTB program is uniquely positioned to provide applicants with expert mentoring from these partners, that provides scientific expertise and commercial acumen to support projects in their translation to proof of concept.
“The successful projects we invest in through the BTB program will lead to new therapies, technologies and medical devices to improve the health of Australians and deliver real impact to people all over the world,” Dr Grant explains.
Opening Monday 17 February, applications to the BTB program will be open until 5:00PM (AEDT) on Friday, 6 March 2020. Details can be found at the BTB page.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Humanity, Technology and Health Frontiers will be the focus of the Summit, with the program covering topics such as genomics, robotics, 5G technology, private/public partnerships and artificial intelligence.
The GFCC is a global multi-stakeholder organisation represented in more than 30 nations. It promotes innovation, productivity and mutual learning between countries as a way of supporting the ongoing success of a range of sectors, including health.
Noteworthy leaders in the GFCC network Charles Holliday Jr. (Chairman, GFCC and Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, plc.), Mehmood Kahn (Chairman, U.S. Council on Competitiveness and CEO, Life Biosciences) and Deborah Wince-Smith (President, GFCC and President and CEO, U.S. Council on Competitiveness) will travel to Australia to attend the Summit.
The Morrison Government has committed $300,000 to support the delivery of the Summit.
The Summit will allow Australia to create new partnership opportunities and work with other global leaders to develop innovative health solutions to current and future problems.
Health and innovation are key priorities for the Government, including the recent commitment of $5 billion through the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) to support breakthrough medical research into new frontiers of science.
Areas of focus include the transformative platforms of stem cell research and genomics, being able to diagnose, treat, and help people recover with genuine precision medicine.
The Summit agenda will address Australia’s future competitiveness with discussions on navigating the Australian context and opportunities for collaboration between countries.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]February 1, 2020 marked the final price reduction for devices on the Prostheses List as per an agreement (the Agreement) between the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA) and the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt MP, entered into on October 2017.
Price cuts under the Agreement have already saved insurers a total of A$390 million and the savings are on track to exceed the A$1.1 billion in total expected by 2022. Between the Agreement and the 7.5% benefit reduction for hip prostheses announced by then-Minister for Health Sussan Ley in October 2016, the medical devices sector has undergone four significant price cuts.
“Every day we at Stryker are driven by our mission to make healthcare better for patients, that includes ensuring Australians have access to affordable, high quality medical technology” said Maurice Ben-Mayor, President of Stryker South Pacific.
“We believe that the Prostheses List is an effective, transparent mechanism to protect patients from out-of-pocket costs and guarantee choice of the most clinically effective prostheses for their individual needs.
“The MTAA’s Prostheses List Agreement was modelled on the assumption that private health insurers would pass the A$1.1 billion of savings from medical device price cuts onto their members in the form of lower private health insurance premiums.
“Unfortunately, I have seen little evidence that these savings have been passed on in full to consumers.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The price cuts are thanks to the Medical Technology Association of Australia’s landmark agreement with Federal
Health Minister Greg Hunt in 2017, which is on track to save $1.1 billion off the cost of medical devices by 2022.
MTAA CEO Ian Burgess said patients continued to get “more for less”, with price drops for about 7000 individual types and brands of medical technologies used in millions of procedures in the private system each year, including:
Condition
Med Tech
New Price (Feb 2020)
Savings (Feb 2020)
Savings Since Agreement (2017)
Heart Disease
Pacemaker
$35,132
-$2,848
-$12,343
Diabetes
Insulin Pump
$8,574
-$451
–
Severe Arthritis (Hip)
Replacement Joint
$8,351
-$393
-$853
Lung Disease
Airflow Valve System
$5,686
-$299
-$614
Bone Cancer (Leg)
Artificial Bone
$7,066
-$181
-$428
Eye Trauma
Artificial (Glass) Eye
$1,741
-$92
-$189
Source: Federal Dept of Health Prostheses List Feb 2020, Nov 2019 & August 2017.
“This agreement with government continues to help more Australians access more medical technology at less cost.
“That is what I call a win-win-win for patients, taxpayers and industry.
“Today’s announcement also debunks the long-held claim that the cost of individual medical technologies continue to rise, when the vast majority are actually falling in price.
“This is further evidence that when governments work with the medical technology sector, patients get a good deal more.”
Over 3 million medical devices were used to treat Australians with private health insurance last year alone.
Mr Burgess said just like advancements in medicines, medical technology was evolving and becoming as much about improving lives, not just saving them.
“Two of the biggest contributors to Australia’s ill-health are inactivity and isolation – and the two are often linked, particularly as we get older.
“Increasingly medical technology is being used not just to save lives, but keeping Australians more mobile, social, and now, working, for longer, which are all essential to the future health of our ageing population and economy.
“These medical technologies are also continuing to improve patient recovery and operating times, for less cost, meaning better outcomes for the health system and the budget.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Researchers currently estimate that a person carrying the Wuhan coronavirus will, on average, infect approximately 2.6 people.
Recent reports out of Wuhan also cite a case of a single patient who infected 14 health care workers. That qualifies him as a super spreader: someone who is responsible for infecting an especially large number of other people.
During an emerging outbreak, epidemiologists want to determine whether super spreaders are part of the picture. Their existence can accelerate the rate of new infections or substantially expand the geographic distribution of the disease.
In response to super spreaders, officials can recommend various ways to limit their impact and slow the spread of disease, depending on how the pathogen is transmitted. Pathogens transmitted via air droplets, contaminated surfaces, sexual contact, needles, food or drinking water will require different interventions. For example, the recommendation for face masks would be specific to airborne transmission, while hand-washing and surface sterilization are needed for germs that can live for a while on surfaces.
What are the characteristics of a super spreader?
Whether someone is a super spreader or not will depend on some combination of the pathogen and the patient’s biology and their environment or behavior at the given time. And in a society with so much global connectivity, the ability to move pathogens rapidly across great distances, often before people are even aware they are sick, helps create environments ripe for super spreading.
Some infected individuals might shed more virus into the environment than others because of how their immune system works. Highly tolerant people do not feel sick and so may continue about their daily routines, inadvertently infecting more people. Alternatively, people with weaker immune systems that allow very high amounts of virus replication may be very good at transmitting even if they reduce their contacts with others. Individuals who have more symptoms – for example, coughing or sneezing more – can also be better at spreading the virus to new human hosts.
A person’s behaviors, travel patterns and degree of contact with others can also contribute to super spreading. An infected shopkeeper might come in contact with a large number of people and goods each day. An international business traveler may crisscross the globe in a short period of time. A sick health care worker might come in contact with large numbers of people who are especially susceptible, given the presence of other underlying illnesses.
When have super spreaders played a key role in an outbreak?
There are a number of historical examples of super spreaders. The most famous is Typhoid Mary, who in the early 20th century purportedly infected 51 people with typhoid through the food she prepared as a cook. Since Mary was an asymptomatic carrier of the bacteria, she didn’t feel sick, and so was not motivated to use good hand-washing practices.
During the last two decades, super spreaders have started a number of measles outbreaks in the United States. Sick, unvaccinated individuals visited densely crowded places like schools, hospitals, airplanes and theme parks where they infected many others.
Super spreaders have also played a key role in the outbreaks of other coronaviruses, including SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome). A traveler sick with SARS and staying in a Hong Kong hotel infected a number of overseas guests who then returned home and introduced the virus into four other countries.
For both SARS and MERS, super spreading commonly occurred in hospitals, with scores of people being infected at a time. In South Korea in 2015, one MERS patient infected over 80 other patients, medical personnel and visitors in a crowded emergency department over a three-day period. In this case, proximity to the original patient was the biggest risk factor for getting sick.
Can super spreading occur in all infectious diseases?
Yes. Some scientists estimate that in any given outbreak, 20% of the population is usually responsible for causing over 80% of all cases of the disease. Researchers have identified super spreaders in outbreaks of diseases from those caused by bacteria, such as tuberculosis, as well as those caused by viruses, including measles, MERS and Ebola.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Ms Trimmer grew up in Sydney and studied law and arts majoring in English at the Australia National University.
Trimmer stayed in Canberra after completing university and joined leading local firm Macphillamy Cummins & Gibson to practice commercial law, then went onto work at Deacons Graham & James (now Norton Rose Fulbright), before finally finishing her legal career as a commercial partner at Minter Ellison, practicing in both Canberra and Sydney.
Trimmer had her first insight into the workings of government when departments started outsourcing legal services in the late 1990s and she worked on a wide range of matters, including the contracts for the new Australian passport.
It was a high-profile role because it came at an interesting juncture for the legal profession. The practice of law was undergoing significant structural change, with many national mergers of firms; technology changing the way legal services were delivered; and women outnumbering men among graduates going into the profession but still not breaking through into partner ranks to any great degree.
Trimmer says that as president of the Law Council she learned about listening to differing and sometimes conflicting views, negotiating outcomes, and the art of compromise. “I learned that acting in a respectful way around a board table or a council table is hugely beneficial, and you take that into all other aspects of your life. Respectful relationships sometimes get overlooked but are really critical to successful organisations,” she says.
Trimmer also came to understand the political process, the effectiveness of well-directed advocacy, and the need to work with all parties in parliament, as well as with the bureaucracy.
Before she joined the AMA, Trimmer had her first taste of an executive role as CEO of the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA). She learned more about recruiting the right people, managing them, and letting them grow in their roles. She also gained insight into how to report to a board and importantly how to provide information and guidance from the executive to the board because as an executive she was much closer to the business and where it was heading.
When she was headhunted to join the AMA in 2013, Trimmer saw an opportunity to employ her developing advocacy skills. “I was attracted by the AMA’s advocacy influence and by the complexity of the policy issues it addresses. Health policy is probably the most challenging area of public policy because of the interweaving of so many players – public and private, federal and state, funders, providers, consumers, and of course the healthcare professionals,” she says.
Effective advocacy starts with understanding the structure of the parliamentary process and the political decision-making process. “It’s a completely different set of dynamics, engaging at the political level. Often, people approach political influencing or political advocacy assuming that it’s the minister who is the one that is going to make the decision but, in fact, it’s so multifaceted,” Trimmer says. “Yes, you need to work with the policy minister, but you also need to work with their staff. You need to work with their department. You need to work with committees. You really need to spread your web very wide.”
It is also important to work with both sides of parliament and increasingly with crossbench MPs and senators. “There is now a multitude of small parties that sit in the Senate. Their members all sit on Senate committees, which can be quite influential in particular areas of policy, and obviously they can be a blocker to government legislation that’s coming from the [Lower] House,” Trimmer says.
Ms Trimmer was joined on the honours list by RACS and AOA’s past president Mr John Batten for his significant service to orthopaedic medicines and to professional bodies.
Biography information for this article was sourced from the Australian Institute of Company Directors .[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
