WHAT TO EXPECT IN 2019

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

The Federal & NSW Election

The most anticipated event of 2019 will be the Federal Election which will pit Prime Minister Scott Morrison against Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. While the date of the election has still not been officially announced, many political pundits are predicting the Government will go to a May election, giving the Prime Minister time to put forward a Budget in April, with an expected budget surplus.

A May Federal Election would be welcomed news for the NSW Government which is facing an ever-tightening election of its own, due on 23 March. The NSW Coalition Government has experienced a heavy voter backlash recently, attributed to the political instability of their Federal counterparts.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Roll-out of Private Health insurance reforms

The Federal Government’s private health insurance (PHI) reforms, lead by Health Minister Greg Hunt, will be introduced starting from 1 April 2019, with insurers having until 1 April 2020 to fully adopt the changes.

The reforms are aimed at simplifying hospital products for consumers by creating four easily understood tiers – Gold, Silver Bronze and Basic. The Government believes the new tiers will give consumers greater certainty about the services covered by each type of hospital treatment product.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Labor’s Productivity Commission

In February 2018, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Shadow Health Minister Catherine King, announced the Opposition’s policy to cap PHI premium increases at two per cent for two years and task the Productivity Commission with a comprehensive inquiry into the private health sector.

The Opposition believes government has a greater role to play in restoring affordability and value for consumers, and stopping the private health insurance exodus that is putting the system at risk. At the end of 2018, the Opposition released its own issues paper to kick-start their consultation with industry stakeholders , and invited submissions to help inform the design of their pledged Productivity Commission inquiry.

It is expected the promised inquiry would run for approximately a year.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

BACK TO SCHOOL FOR EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES WITH A HELPING HAND

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Wairoa School provides a comprehensive education for children aged 5 to 18 years of age who have moderate to severe disabilities and may also have additional support needs related to autism, physical and sensory disabilities.

The Edwards’ team arrived before school started and once they had hats, sunscreen and gloves in place they got straight into it.

This isn’t the first time Edwards employees have done voluntary work at the school. Last year, over two days, a collective total of 78 hours was volunteered by staff to action the garden vision of the school side entry grounds.

Edwards says it aspires to have 100% of their employees do at least one charitable activity every year.

Employees completed the new garden with a feeling they really contributed and made a positive impact in the lives of the kids and their families.

Managing Director of Edwards Lifesciences ANZ, Pat Williams said “the physically demanding work our volunteers did over Friday and Saturday at Wairoa School for the severely handicapped was truly phenomenal – I’m confident that the staff and students will appreciate the work to improve this area of the school.

“Our commitment to charitable giving is one of the defining elements of our culture. We’re fortunate to be able to support many health- and community-focused programs through grants to non-profit organisations around the world from the Edwards Lifesciences Foundation.”

This year the Wairoa School was successful recipient of $5,000 from the Edwards Lifesciences Foundation.

Edwards believes that through their actions they will become trusted partners with customers, colleagues, and patients – creating a community unified in its mission to improve the quality of life around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_images_carousel images=”2640,2641,2642,2643″ img_size=”large” speed=”10000″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

PRICE DISPARITY BLAMED FOR HIGHER PREMIUMS

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Just last month, the Guardian reported that the Australian competition watchdog’s review of the private health insurance industry found Australians were forced to cough up $23.9 billion in premiums last financial year – that’s $834 million more than they had to pay in 2016/17.

The Guardian also reported that “the number of people with hospital-only or combined health cover fell 0.9 percentage points to 45.1%, while the proposition of policyholders with extras-only cover rose to 9.2% from 8.9%”.

The association representing Australia’s private health insurance industry, Private Healthcare Australia (PHA), has continued to assert that private health funds are delivering record health benefits for Australians, despite their decision to increase premiums for their customers.

PHA has points to a number of factors for the price hikes, including blaming medical technology (MedTech) innovators for the prices they charge for medical devices. However, PHA appears to have conveniently ignored the Agreement MedTech innovators reached with the Commonwealth Government to deliver $1.1 billion in savings, over four years. This enabled MedTech innovators to singlehandedly deliver, for Australians, the lowest increase to their private health insurance premiums in 17 years.

Another tried and tested argument rolled out by the PHI industry is that Australians are charged up to three times more for medical devices than their British and New Zealand counterparts. MedTech innovators, however, argue that the variations in prices for medical devices reflects the differing market environments, supply chains, economies of scale and contrasting reimbursement systems from country to country.

So do Australians really pay more for the same devices? Let’s take a look:

In 2016, one of Australia’s largest PHI companies, Bupa, acknowledged the difficulty in comparing the prices of devices in one country to another. When asked why Australians are having to pay up to $400 more a month for private health insurance than consumers in countries like Britain, Bupa said the “private health market in Britain was ‘very different’ (than Australia’s market), with insurers able to pick and choose customers and force patients to seek their approval before being referred to a specialist.”

The structure of healthcare systems in individual countries, the split between private and public healthcare and the source of funding impacts the price of prostheses, making it impossible for prices to be the same across different countries.

A simple example of these difference can be found when comparing the incentives for the public hospital sector and the private hospital sector and the services they provide. Public hospitals are incentivised to provide necessary and efficient care at the lowest possible cost through, what is called, Activity Based Funding (ABF). As a result, purchasing of prostheses occurs through centralised tenders which trade off prostheses choice against prostheses volume (either directly or indirectly), with control about what is available to the hospital being made by hospital administrators.

The private hospital sector, however, is not constrained by ABF and clinicians rather than hospital administrators make the decisions about services and care provided, including the types of prostheses they would like to use. These different incentives influence the different patterns of use and the economies of scale that are possible.

So, while some countries may appear to have comparable healthcare systems to Australia, but when they are analysed in a greater depth, they can actually be completely different.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

MEDTECH MEDIA STORM, FAIR AND BALANCED?

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The campaign, coordinated by a U.S.-based media group, launched a barrage of negative stories that sought to question the safety and integrity of regulatory processes for medical devices around the world. Here in Australia, local media outlets used the opportunity to share the stories of specially selected patients who alleged their medical devices were not functioning as intended and questioned the robustness of Australia’s regulatory processes.

The association representing MedTech innovators in Australia, the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA), was quick to slam, what it described as an “inaccurate and sensationalist” campaign adopted by Australian media outlets.

In a statement, MTAA CEO, Ian Burgess, voiced his disappointment at the irresponsible tone and the inaccuracies of the media coverage.

“It’s disappointing to see Australian media outlets, such as the ABC, calling into question the integrity of the TGA, MedTech innovators and the dedicated Australians who work in the industry, by choosing to go down the path of sensationalism and biased reporting,” Mr Burgess said.

As PulseLine covered last week in our feature story, Australia has one of the most highly regulated and robust assessment systems in the world for MedTech. Considering the millions of MedTech devices Australians have successfully implanted, or come into contact with each year, it’s hard not to see the regulatory process has a strong track record for safety.

If you’re asking yourself ‘doesn’t selective reporting by the media undermine the confidence people have in the system?’ You would be right.

Unbalanced stories, specifically orchestrated for coordinated media campaigns like this one, can create unwarranted fear in the community, causing someone, who would benefit from a medical device, to avoid seeking treatment that could otherwise improve their quality of life.

Following the media storm Australia’s federal Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, requested Australia’s regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), to investigate whether additional measures are needed to improve the safety of medical devices.

While it is still too early to know what sort of harm this negative campaign will have on patients’ decisions to forgo the benefits of medical devices, one thing is for sure, Australian media outlets should avoid the pitfalls of the type of sensationalist reporting that is all too often common practice in other parts of the world.

Australians can, and should, be proud of the professionalism of the hardworking men and women who work in the TGA and the MedTech industry who work day-in and day-out to ensure Australians have access to the most innovative and life-changing medical technologies in the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_zigzag][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

DID YOU KNOW:

Global advances in medical technology over the past 20 years has led to a 56% reduction in hospital stays, 25% decline in disability rates, 16% decline in annual mortality and an increase in life expectancy of approx. 3.2 years?[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

HOW ROBUST ARE AUSTRALIA’S REGULATIONS?

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]When questions about safety are raised it’s understandable that people, by their nature, might assume the worst is true. But is it? PulseLine wanted to go to the source and find out just how robust Australia’s system is when it comes to medical devices.

In Australia MedTech companies are represented by a national association called the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA). The aim of MTAA is to ensure the benefits of modern, innovative and reliable MedTech are delivered effectively to provide Australians with better health outcomes and an improved quality of life.

MTAA CEO, Ian Burgess, believes millions of Australians’ lives have been transformed by having a medical device thanks to the Australian MedTech industry making safety as its highest priority.

“MedTech has improved the lives of millions of people right across Australia, thanks primarily to the efforts made by MedTech companies, government and medical practitioners placing such a high priority on the safety of medical devices being used in Australia,” Mr Burgess said.

“When it comes to ensuring we have a robust and thorough process for approving medical devices for the Australian market, MTAA are the first to advocate for a consistent and evidence-based approach to regulations.”

In Australia, the regulatory process is governed by a risk-based system of classification that determines the level of scrutiny a medical device will be subjected to before it is included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). A medical device must be on the ARTG before it can be lawfully supplied in or imported into Australia.

The regulator responsible for overseeing this process in Australia is the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) which assesses medical devices in line with a device’s intended purpose and risk-based classification. This includes:

  • A pre-market assessment – called a conformity assessment;
  • Market authorisation – so the device can be included on the ARTG; and
  • Post-market monitoring – which ensures the device continues to comply with all of the regulatory, safety and performance requirements and standards.

We all know how fast technology changes in today’s world. So, when it comes to regulations keeping up with that change, we wanted to know what the MedTech industry and government were doing to keep pace.

It turns out that in 2016 the Australian Government announced a series of reforms and projects to improve the regulatory process. These include moving towards global harmonisation, achieving appropriate classification for classes of medical devices based on risk, and working with sponsors and manufacturers to manage emerging issues in the post-market space.

Department of Health Deputy Secretary, Adjunct Professor John Skerritt, highlighted to PulseLine that TGA uses a number of sources of information to monitor the ongoing safety of medical devices included in the ARTG.

When it comes to monitoring the safety of post-market devices, the TGA receives “signals from multiple sources including notifications and information from other regulators, compulsory reporting from manufacturers and sponsors, competitors and whistle-blowers, media and government,” Professor Skerritt said.

“Reporting of adverse events and issues associated with the use of medical devices plays a vital role in identifying emerging issues that may require regulatory action or legislation change.”

Medical devices in Australia are subjected to a robust regulatory approval and legal framework, which requires device companies to report adverse events to the TGA.

So, when you consider the millions of medical devices Australians have successfully implanted, or interact with each year, it’s clear the regulatory process has a strong track record for ensuring safety for all Australians.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

MEDTECH INNOVATORS DESCEND ON SYDNEY

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Kicked off by MTAA’s board Chair, Gavin Fox-Smith, the two-day event was packed with a long list of guest speakers and panel discussions that ranged from politics, software and cybersecurity to patient empowerment and philanthropy.

The organisers stepped up the interactivity this year by inviting the audience to participate in the panel discussions by submitting and voting for questions from their smartphones. Suffice to say the questions were coming thick and fast throughout the panel discussions, but even more so during the first two panels on politics and the next NSW and Federal Election.

Mingling among the sponsor displays during the intermissions PulseLine spotted Stryker South Pacific’s Maurice Ben-Mayor chatting to MTAA’s CEO, Ian Burgess. One can only assume they might have been discussing Stryker being awarded the best place to work for 2 years running, or even Ben-Mayor’s thoughts on CVs that he laid out in a viral LinkedIn post (read it here).

Also, in attendance was Edwards Lifesciences’ Managing Director Pat Williams speaking with MTAA’s outgoing Government Relations and Communications Manager, Polo Guilbert-Wright (a contributor to PulseLine). We understand Polo was head-hunted by Edwards Lifesciences who are looking to leverage his public affairs experience as the government enters an uncertain election period.

This year’s conference also raised the stakes by partnering with the Actuator’s Buzz Palmer and Vishaal Kishore to bring MedTech’s Got Talent (MTGT) to the stage. The top 20 MTGT participants faced off in a one-minute rapid fire round where they pitched for a chance to progress to the Finals Gala event where they will be given the chance to pitch for up to $200,000 in seed equity investment. Needless to say, the participants were nervous, and the audience was enthralled with the innovative solutions these start-ups were presenting. Stay posted for more on this story.

We can’t wait to see how they’ll be able to top 2018’s MedTech Conference next year, but as we have done in the past, PulseLine will bring you all the latest news, insights and interviews from the event.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_images_carousel images=”2536,2537,2538,2539″ img_size=”full” autoplay=”yes” wrap=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row]

INCREASING DOUBT ON VALUE OF PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In 2014, nearly two thirds (65.8%) of fund members agreed that ‘it is essential to have private health insurance’. Each year since then it has declined further to the current level of 56.9% in August 2018.

These are some of the latest findings from Roy Morgan’s Single Source Survey (Australia) which is based on in-depth personal interviews conducted face-to-face with over 50,000 Australians per annum in their own homes, including detailed questioning of over 8,000 interviews with members of private health insurance funds about their views about private health insurance.

Declining attitudes towards private health insurance

Over many years Roy Morgan has been measuring the attitudes of fund members to ten key statements that are focused on how they feel towards having health insurance. Since 2014, there has been an adverse trend across all of these metrics.

Although the majority of fund members (72.1%) still agree that ‘above all else, private health insurance is about knowing that you’ll be able to cover the cost of big medical expenses if they arise’, this has fallen from 77.0% in 2014. The other major level of agreement with 68.9%, was for ‘health insurance gives me peace of mind’ but this also showing a gradual decline from the 74.0% recorded in 2014.

Attitudes to Private Health Insurance

[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”2513″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_separator border_width=”3″][vc_column_text]The biggest change in attitude over the last four years was the 8.9% point decline (to 56.9%) for ‘it is essential to have private health insurance’. Other areas to show major changes were ‘it is difficult to understand what you are covered for’ (up 8.1% points to 44.4%), ‘extras and hospital cover are equally important’ (down 5.9% points to 54.6%) and ‘I don’t see much value in having it’ (up 5.4% points to 16.4%).

It is worth noting that there are no significant differences to these attitudes in capital cities compared to regional Australia.

Generational differences in private health insurance attitudes

There are some major generational differences in attitudes towards private health insurance that must be taken into account when marketing to this very diverse group. An example of this is the high level of agreement (77.2%) among Pre-Boomers that ‘it is essential to have private health insurance’, compared to only 38.2% among Gen Z.

“It is essential to have private health insurance”

[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”2514″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_separator border_width=”3″][vc_column_text]Other differences include Millennials who are a major growth area for private health insurance as they enter the life-stage where they generally have more responsibilities with families and mortgages. This is reflected in the fact they are well above average in agreeing to issues that relate to the cost of health insurance, such as; ‘I want the cheapest and don’t care provider’; ‘only reason to have it is to avoid paying extra tax’; and ‘I don’t see much value in having it’.

As would be expected, it is the youngest generation who are the least engaged in private health insurance. Gen Z who are aged 14 to 27 in this analysis, have very low levels of concern when it comes to health issues and in fact are more likely to ‘rely on recommendations from friends and family in choosing a fund’.

Norman Morris, Industry Communications Director, Roy Morgan says:

“Although the attitudes of private health fund members are reasonably favourable, over recent years they have generally shown an adverse trend, which should be of some concern to both health funds and the government. It appears that the major decline in considering it essential to have private health insurance is likely be a response to the lack of perceived value due to cost and uncertainty of what is covered.

“This research has only covered the attitudes of private health fund members and so it’s likely that people without this insurance are even more adversely predisposed towards health insurance. This makes it a challenge to attract new members as well as retaining existing ones.

“To engage fund members and the general population more in health insurance, this analysis has shown that there is a need to understand what motivates different age groups and generations to take out and stay in health insurance as they cannot be treated as a single homogeneous group.

“With health funding being a major concern for both State and Federal governments, it is vital that they and the health funds continue to promote the benefits of health insurance. Any decline in fund membership will lead to more pressure on the public system and as a result increased government funding.

“The data highlighted here is only a small part of what is available on the full database that covers private health insurance in-depth and trended over many years. With a great of competition in this industry it is important to understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of all the major funds. The results shown in this release can be produced at the individual fund level, enabling unique competitive insights. To find out more ask Roy Morgan.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Plan To Tackle Heart Disease And Stroke In Australia

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The National Heart Foundation of Australia has received $170,000 to develop a National Strategic Action Plan, with assistance from the National Stroke Foundation.

Heart conditions and stroke place a heavy burden in terms of mortality and disability on the Australian community.

Heart disease is the single leading cause of death in Australia, with more than a quarter of all deaths in Australia each year having heart disease as an underlying cause. In 2016, the underlying cause of death in 43,963 people was cardiovascular disease.

On World Stroke Day, it is important to remember that stroke is one of Australia’s biggest causes of mortality, killing more women than breast cancer and more men than prostate cancer, and is a leading cause of disability. Every nine minutes an Australian experiences a stroke, with 56,000 strokes occurring in 2017.

These conditions take a tremendous toll on individuals, families and friends and this national strategic action plan will recommend a way forward and assist the realisation of better outcomes for patients.

It will guide and direct the measures we need take to improve awareness, understanding, diagnosis and treatment of heart conditions and stroke in our community.

The Heart Foundation does a great job in our community raising awareness, conducting research and promoting ways to help all Australians to look after their heart. I look forward to receiving the action plan.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) subsidises several medications used in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. About $1.3 billion is expended annually by the Australian Government to subsidise medications for treating heart conditions and stroke through the PBS.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

MEDTRONIC CO-FOUNDER EARL BAKKEN PASSES AWAY AT AGE 94

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]“Today we are saddened by the passing of Earl Bakken, but we also honor and will forever cherish the life of a beloved man whose brilliance and vision have improved the lives of millions of people around the world,” said Omar Ishrak, Medtronic chairman and chief executive officer. “The contributions Earl made to the field of medical technology simply cannot be overstated. His spirit will live on with us as we work to fulfill the Mission he wrote nearly 60 years ago – to alleviate pain, restore health, and extend life. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Bakken family during this difficult time.”

In 1949, Mr. Bakken founded Medtronic with his brother-in-law, Palmer J. Hermundslie. Before retiring as chairman in 1989, Bakken led Medtronic for 40 years, guiding the company from humble roots into the world’s premiere medical technology company.

Born in Columbia Heights, Minn., Mr. Bakken graduated from high school in 1941 and enlisted in the Army Signal Corps where he served in World War II as a radar instructor. After leaving the Army, he attended the University of Minnesota, earning a degree in electrical engineering.

While a graduate student, Mr. Bakken did part-time work repairing delicate lab equipment at Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis. Demand for these services grew, and on April 29, 1949, Bakken and Hermundslie formed a business partnership. They called the company Medtronic, with its headquarters in a modified garage in northeast Minneapolis.

While installing and servicing devices used during early open-heart surgeries, Bakken and Hermundslie built relationships with physicians at University Hospitals, Minneapolis. The late C. Walton Lillehei, a young staff surgeon at the time, was pioneering procedures to help “blue babies” born with often-lethal heart defects. Following a power outage in the Twin Cities that caused the death of an infant, Dr. Lillehei asked Bakken to find a solution. Bakken responded by building the world’s first wearable, transistorized pacemaker. He adapted a circuit described for an electronic transistorized metronome in the magazine Popular Electronics. This milestone is viewed by many as the “birth” of Medtronic. Pacemakers, however, were only one product in a growing, but increasingly diverse, product line.

In 1960, in an effort to more clearly define Medtronic’s areas of concentration and its values, Mr. Bakken wrote the Medtronic Mission, which has guided the company and remains unchanged.

In 1994, Bakken moved to the Big Island of Hawaii. As a resident, he was a prominent volunteer and philanthropist. He became Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Five Mountain Medical Community as it developed the North Hawaii Community Hospital. While on the board, he also helped to establish Tutu’s House, a community resource center promoting careers, education, and effective health outcomes, and the Kohala Center, a community-based center for research, conservation and education.

In 1975, he founded The Bakken Museum, a nonprofit library, museum and education center in Minneapolis. The museum is devoted to the history of electricity and magnetism and their uses in science and medicine.

Mr. Bakken’s passion for philanthropy did not wane in his later years. In 2013 he launched The Bakken Invitation, which honors patients whose lives have been extended thanks to medical technology and who have used this “gift of extra life” to make an impact through service and volunteerism. Bakken Inivitation honorees receive a donation to their cause along with a trip to Hawaii to take part in a special ceremony.

Mr. Bakken also was involved in several other philanthropic ventures, including the Na Kalai Waa Moku O Hawaii, Friends of the Future and the Imiloa Astronomy Center of Hawaii.

In Dec. 2007, at age 83, Bakken became the first recipient of an honorary Medical Degree from the University of Minnesota, recognizing his contributions in the medical field. During his life, he also received honorary doctorates from the Universities of Hawaii, Tulane, and the Albany College of Pharmacy. In 1995, Mr. Bakken was named to the Minnesota Inventors Hall of Fame and received an Outstanding Achievement Award from the University of Minnesota in 1981. In 1984, his cardiac pacemaker was named one of the 10 most outstanding engineering achievements of the last half century by the National Society of Professional Engineers. In 2014, Bakken received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Advanced Medical Technology Association.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

NEUROMODULATION SOCIETY SAYS OPIOID CRISIS SET TO SOAR UNDER PHI CHANGES

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Neuromodulation Society of Australia and New Zealand (NSANZ) is concerned Australian patients will be forced to upgrade, or miss-out pain management treatments with devices, under the PHI policy changes.

 “We are calling for the Government to make good on their promise, and guarantee that all existing procedures for pain management, including devices, be made available in Bronze, Silver and Gold policies,” said Dr Richard Sullivan, Pain Medicine Specialist Physician and NSANZ President, Melbourne.

“Australian strong opioid-related deaths now exceed heroin deaths by two-and-a-half-times, and estimates suggest more than a quarter of chronic pain patients are misusing prescription strong opioids.

“These numbers will increase should patients be denied access to chronic pain procedures they currently have under their existing policies,” said Dr Sullivan.

Mum-of-four, Kelly, 46, Wollongong, has been living with chronic pain for almost three decades, pain that significantly worsened following complications during surgery for a herniated disc.

“Chronic pain doesn’t just affect you, it really affects your entire family as well. I have three kids, and have just adopted my niece, and I was living on opioid patches unable to move off the couch.

“My pain management device gave me a new lease on life. I’ve gone back to work, I can run around with the kids, I can even sit and stand by myself without kids having to pull me out of the chair.

“Without my device for chronic pain, I wouldn’t have been able to work and would have lost my house.

“If my insurance didn’t cover my chronic pain device, there’s no way I would have been able to afford it. I can’t imagine what the consequences would be if other people were denied access to life-changing treatment for their chronic pain,” said Kelly.

The Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA) has been supportive of the Government efforts to simplify and make transparent private health insurance policies but remains concerned of the unintended consequences.

“It’s disappointing that consumers that need access to life saving and life changing medical devices will in most cases need a gold level policy to do so,” Ian Burgess CEO of the MTAA said.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]