Healthcare

<html><body>
In the past, when you needed chemotherapy or intravenous (in-the-vein) treatments such as antibiotics or hydration, you needed to be admitted to hospital.
These days, it’s possible to have such treatments in the comfort of your home, with nursing or other clinical supports.
Public hospital-in-the-home and other hospital-substitute programs are burgeoning in the public sector, including in <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/193_10_151110/mon10237_fm.pdf" target="_blank">Victoria</a>, <a href="https://www.silverchain.org.au/wa/" target="_blank">Western Australia</a> and <a href="https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Performance/Pages/HITH.aspx" target="_blank">New South Wales</a>. These programs now provide the equivalent of hundreds of hospital beds.
Having treatment at home is more convenient for patients, reduces the demand on hospitals, and <a href="https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007491.pub2/abstract" target="_blank">cuts costs for the health system</a>.
But if you have private health insurance and want to access these services via a private hospital, it’s often not possible. This needs to change.
<h2>What’s the problem?</h2>
Private health insurers are tightly regulated. If you have a top “gold” package, for example, the insurer must pay for all hospital services that attract a government Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) payment, other than cosmetic surgery.
But insurers are currently <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/private-health-insurance/about-private-health-insurance/how-does-private-health-insurance-work" target="_blank">not allowed to cover</a> care provided outside of hospitals, except in very limited circumstances.
Insurers are allowed to cover eligible home-based programs developed by private hospitals. But they get to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to cover these programs. And each insurer makes a separate decision for each program.
This means private hospitals must negotiate with each private health insurer for each separate program, for each contract period. This makes it almost impossible for private hospitals to develop sustainable business cases for their programs.
The upshot is patients often miss out on the convenience of having hospital-type services in their home, and instead may face prolonged hospital stays.
The red tape needs to be untangled to make it easier for private hospitals and doctors to run these programs and for insurers to pay for them.
<h2>What kind of care can you get at home?</h2>
Few hospital-type services are delivered at home under the current system for privately insured patients: they account for about <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/quarterly-private-health-insurance-statistics" target="_blank">4% of hospital treatments paid in 2018-19</a>.
<a href="https://www.cabrini.com.au/patients-and-families/services/directory/hospital-in-the-home" target="_blank">Common hospital-type treatments</a> in the home include IV therapy and wound care.
A number of insurers are conducting pilot programs for out-of-hospital rehabilitation after strokes, <a href="https://www.medibank.com.au/livebetter/my-medibank/using-your-cover/rehab-in-the-home/" target="_blank">joint replacements</a> or an accident; chemotherapy; kidney dialysis; and <a href="https://media.bupa.com.au/palliative-care-pilot-recognised/" target="_blank">palliative care</a>, so people can die more comfortably in their own homes.
Untangling red tape would also allow private hospitals to offer more “<a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3702" target="_blank">prehabilitation</a>” programs to prepare people for elective surgery, and to offer <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2018/209/5/predictors-inpatient-rehabilitation-after-total-knee-replacement-analysis" target="_blank">rehabilitation programs in people’s homes</a> after surgery.
Theoretically, hospital-substitute programs at home could expand to other treatment areas such as obstetrics to have your baby at home. Or for <a href="https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/05EB674588C31EB7CA257E28001F1BBD/%24File/Guidelines%20for%20Determining%20Benefits%202015%20Edition-Checked.pdf" target="_blank">mental health</a> treatment, which may be more efficiently provided outside hospital.
But legislative restrictions (designed to stop insurers covering general practice) have limited the expansion of these programs.
<h2>How should the system work?</h2>
Regulation should support people’s access to the most efficient form of care. And private hospitals should have more certainty about how they’ll be reimbursed when they invest in alternatives to hospital inpatient care.
Rather than each insurer deciding whether they should fund good programs, the independent body which assesses and approves the public-sector equivalent of home-based care – the <a href="https://www.ihpa.gov.au/" target="_blank">Independent Hospital Pricing Authority</a> – should do the same for the private sector.
If a program has been approved by the authority, then private health insurers should be required to pay for it.
Specialist doctors, such as oncologists, should also be able to establish hospital substitute programs and have them approved for funding by private health insurers.
All of this is about improving quality and access to care, while at the same time reducing costs. It should be easier for private health insurers to pay for better alternatives to hospital care, where they can deliver the same treatment with the same or better outcomes, <a href="https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007491.pub2/abstract" target="_blank">but at a lower cost</a>.
It is also about providing good alternatives to private hospital care, increasing competition in the health system, and reducing the number of unnecessary hospital admissions.
There are big opportunities for system-wide efficiencies in the private sector by shifting care from inpatient to outpatient settings – particularly for rehabilitation, psychiatric care, <a href="https://www.asrs.org/patients/retinal-diseases/33/intravitreal-injections" target="_blank">eye injections</a> for retinal conditions, and outpatient <a href="https://www.veinhealth.com.au/ambulatory-phlebectomy/" target="_blank">vein surgery</a>.
The public sector has already expanded its alternatives to hospital inpatient care. It’s time for the private system to do the same.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-duckett-10730" target="_blank">Stephen Duckett</a>, Director, Health Program, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/private-health-insurers-should-start-paying-for-hospital-type-care-at-home-126345" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Private health insurers should start paying for hospital-type care at home

<html><body>
Chemistworks, Myhealth medical centre, and Anytime Fitness have been announced as the three new tenants at Western Sydney's Ed.Square town centre.
The tenancies are apparently part of the planned community’s sustained initiative to attract health services.
It has also confirmed that a massage and acupuncture specialist, sporting goods retailer, pathologist, and childcare operator will be among the first batch of tenants, while a radiologist is currently being sought out for the project.
The Frasers Property group collaborating with HDR, GroupGSA and HASSELL are behind the development, which when completed, is expected to incorporate 1,884 homes in a mix of apartments, terraces and ‘mews’-style townhouses.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/subscribe" target="_blank"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/Subscriber%20strip%20ad.jpg" alt=""></a>
Stage 1 of Ed.Square Town Centre will comprise approximately 25,000 sqm of retail space, with a Coles supermarket, Liquorland store, and Event Cinemas complex set to be rolled out.
On completion of Stage 2, which will roughly add an additional 15,000 sqm, the development will comprise up to 40,000 sqm of retail space with over 120 shops.
It is expected to open in the second half of 2020.
</body></html>

wdavis-8cCN98p7xp

New tenants announced for Western Sydney's Ed.Square 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The poorer people are, the <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44289/9789241563970_eng.pdf?sequence=1" target="_blank">higher their chances</a> of contending with domestic violence, crime, social conflict, homelessness and unemployment.
All these factors contribute to increased levels of psychological distress, which is associated with common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety.
In <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0004867415615948" target="_blank">our research</a>, of adults who recorded “very high” levels of psychological distress on what’s called the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, more than three times as many (30%) came from the most socioeconomically disadvantaged fifth of Australian areas than from the most affluent fifth (9%).
Along with where you live, personal income is an important influence: among the poorest fifth of Australians, one in four people reported “high” or “very high” psychological distress when compared to about <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00536/full" target="_blank">one in 20 people in the richest fifth</a>.
To begin to tackle this problem, we need to see more equitable distribution of mental health care; that is, delivery of care proportionate to need. As it currently stands, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups very often <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-why-rates-of-mental-illness-arent-going-down-despite-higher-spending-97534" target="_blank">do not get optimal mental health care</a>.
<hr>
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282184/original/file-20190702-28321-1bgx6ot.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
<a class="source" href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-why-rates-of-mental-illness-arent-going-down-despite-higher-spending-97534" target="_blank">This chart first appeared in an article published on The Conversation in 2018.</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a>
<hr>
The <a href="https://rcvmhs.vic.gov.au" target="_blank">Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System</a> has begun its public hearings this week in Melbourne. Hopefully, it will provoke improved collaboration between state and Commonwealth services, enabling better access to mental health services for those who need it most.
Socioeconomic disadvantage affects mental health from birth
Unintended pregnancy, being younger, experiencing intimate partner violence and having insufficient emotional and practical support <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3302553/pdf/BLT.11.091850.pdf" target="_blank">can lead to mental disorders</a>, including depression, among pregnant women and new mothers.
Babies of depressed mothers are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150769/pdf/BLT.11.088187.pdf" target="_blank">often underweight</a>, a <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2722846" target="_blank">risk factor for later depression</a>.
One study showed the mental health of four-year-old children is affected by factors including <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187974" target="_blank">family income, maternal education and neighbourhood disadvantage</a>. The researchers followed children in this study until the age of 14 to 15 and found the effects persisted.
Children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are also more likely to do poorly in school, and <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/relationship-between-exclusion-from-school-and-mental-health-a-secondary-analysis-of-the-british-child-and-adolescent-mental-health-surveys-2004-and-2007/C01898F768A7C47FB9A1F2F894B22A85">are more likely to be suspended or expelled</a>.
Financial difficulties have been highlighted as <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/74395807.pdf" target="_blank">an important determinant of mental health for university students</a>, too.
Adults with interpersonal, employment or financial stresses experience <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101146" target="_blank">higher levels of psychological distress</a>.
Job loss is associated with mental health problems, and this association becomes more pronounced <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101146" target="_blank">with long-term unemployment</a>.
Those on welfare support have a <a href="https://jech.bmj.com/content/71/12/1198.long" target="_blank">higher risk of mental disorders</a>.
Poor people can’t access the best treatment
People in countries with <a href="https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level" target="_blank">greater socioeconomic inequality</a> are more likely to have poor mental health than people in more equal societies. Australia is a high-income country, but there remains <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/inequality/" target="_blank">a significant gap</a> between the richest in our society and the poorest.
Many health, educational, transport, housing, welfare and fiscal policy shifts could improve mental health in communities by addressing socioeconomic disadvantage and its impacts across the lifespan.
But while this issue persists, we need to look at what people from disadvantaged groups with mental illness are getting by way of treatment.
Most commonly, people with depression and other mental disorders will be prescribed medications, and/or receive “talking therapies” which might include sessions with a psychologist or other mental health professionals.
Importantly, evidence suggests antidepressants alone are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wps.20089" target="_blank">less likely to be effective</a> than a combination of antidepressants and cognitive behavioural therapy. So where antidepressant medication is recommended, <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/global-mental-health" target="_blank">psychological therapies should be available too</a>.
But as we know, many Australians with common mental disorders such as depression live in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Here, despite the greater need, <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-why-rates-of-mental-illness-arent-going-down-despite-higher-spending-97534" target="_blank">fewer psychological treatment services are delivered</a>. Location of therapists and out-of-pocket costs can both act as barriers to accessing these services.
Ultimately, while poor people generally need mental health services more, rich people tend to access them at a much higher rate. So poorer people often receive only antidepressants, and alone, these may have only a modest effect, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0004867419857821?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&amp;rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&amp;rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed" target="_blank">placing them on the back foot in terms of their recovery</a>.
Much of this care provision rests with Commonwealth Medicare-funded services. State services, meanwhile, struggle to respond to needs left unmet.
The Commonwealth and the states must work together
Although spending on mental health has increased in recent years, so too has the system’s complexity and fragmentation. Delivering equitable mental health care for Australians is complicated by the federal structure and divisions of responsibilities.
For private provider services, there is a need for incentive structures that secure the delivery of free or lower-cost services for the people and in the places where there is greatest need.
The Victorian royal commission into mental health is asking about <a href="https://rcvmhs.vic.gov.au/submissions" target="_blank">drivers of poor community mental health</a>, and flagging the importance of community and economic participation in improving mental health.
Within state mental health policy, funding models should ensure that while all communities get a decent level of mental health care, there is more service availability in areas and communities we know have higher rates of mental health problems.
We’d also be well-served by adopting newer strategies to facilitate access. For example, some people in difficult circumstances may nevertheless have broadband internet sufficient for video links. Getting psychological therapies into people’s homes through this route may be one way around other access problems.
The Victorian royal commission should propose making state funding distribution fairer, but cannot fix these problems alone.
In a recent positive step, the Commonwealth and state governments have <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-fifth-national-mental-health-plan" target="_blank">signed up</a> to a <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-health-intergrated-reg-planning" target="_blank">set of tasks aiming to move towards</a> better integrated mental health care planning.
The challenge for governments now is to cooperate with and support mental health service providers to ensure these services are better connected with each other, and importantly, more fairly and consistently delivered in relation to need.

Graham Meadows, Professor of Adult Psychiatry, Monash University
Anthony Cichello, Clinical Psychologist, Melbourne, and Adjunct Research Fellow, Monash University 
Anton Neville Isaacs, Senior Lecturer, Monash School of Rural Health, Monash University
Frances Shawyer, Research Fellow, Monash University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-its-easier-to-get-meds-than-therapy-how-poverty-makes-it-hard-to-escape-mental-illness-114505" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Submissions for the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System <a href="https://rcvmhs.vic.gov.au/submissions" target="_blank">are open</a> until July 5.
If this article has raised issues for you or you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114505/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
</body></html>

How poverty makes it hard to escape mental illnes

<html><body>
A private investment group has listed one of the first premium grade healthcare offerings in Mornington in two years.  
Recently refurbished, the property sits within the centre of the Mornington healthcare hub. 
CBRE agents Josh Twelftree, Sandro Peluso, Jimmy Tat and Marcello Caspani-Muto have been exclusively appointed to negotiate the sale, following a generous track record of success along Melbourne’s coast. 
Mr Twelftree noted, “The property’s Beleura Hill medical precinct location is a relatively tightly held pocket in the area.” 
“Less than 1km from Beleura Private Hospital, Bays Hospital and Mornington Centre – Peninsula Health, it’s a real medical hotspot – benefiting from strong cross flow demand in the region.”  
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/6/20/1050_Nepean_LifeStyle036.jpg" alt="">
The 635 sqm landholding features a medium-term lease to beauty clinician Jo Hannah of Hannah Aesthetics, former CEO of ASX listed Total Face Group, offering a passing income of $90,000 per annum. 
1050 Nepean Highway will be sold via public auction on July 13.
</body></html>

Rare refurbished medical property offered in Mornington

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The federal government has just promised to increase spending on public hospitals from A$21.7 billion in 2018 to A$26.2 billion by 2023. Expect more hospital promises in coming weeks. There is a long history of parties at both state and federal level pledging new hospitals during election campaigns.
Building new hospitals may at first seem sensible, especially as the population grows. But it will not cure the health system’s most pressing ailment. Instead, <a href="https://bcec.edu.au/assets/2018/12/BCEC-To-Health-and-Happiness-Report.pdf" target="_blank">our research</a> shows it’s more effective to focus health policy on people and prevention.
A problem of demand
It is true that hospitals in Australia aren’t keeping up with demand. Though supply of beds has increased, the population is growing while also ageing. This is increasing demand for all health-care services, including hospital beds.
The following graph shows the change in the number of beds per 1,000 people in all states and territories since 2006. Only in the Australian Capital Territory has the ratio improved.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264557/original/file-20190319-28496-ii13jb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264557/original/file-20190319-28496-ii13jb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Available hospital beds per 1000 population, by region, public hospitals (including psychiatric). <a class="source" href="https://bcec.edu.au/assets/2018/12/BCEC-To-Health-and-Happiness-Report.pdf" target="_blank">Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre | AIHA (various years), Australian hospital statistics, Health Services Series; AIHW (various years), hospital resources' Australian hospital statistics, Health services series.</a>
State and federal governments thus feel a lot of pressure to spend more on hospitals. In 2016-2017 it was <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-expenditure/health-expenditure-australia-2016-17/contents/summary" target="_blank">$69 billion</a> Australia-wide – $2 billion more than the previous year. The following graph shows expenditure on public hospitals by state over the past two decades.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264579/original/file-20190319-60956-6i0qhw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264579/original/file-20190319-60956-6i0qhw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Public hospital spending in each state since 1996. <a class="source" href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-expenditure/health-expenditure-australia-2016-17/contents/data-visualisation" target="_blank">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY</a>
Queensland shows the greatest growth over the past two decades. In Western Australia, where we did our research, the proportion of government health budgets spent on public hospitals rose from 26% to 31%.
Preventive measures
We looked at why the hospital care is growing faster than the overall health sector, and what can be done about this.
Our conclusion: there needs to be more focus on the “unsexy” parts of the health-care system that treat people before they get sick enough to need a hospital. Prevention is cheaper and more effective than cure.
For example, it is estimated that A$9 million invested in <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18719075" target="_blank">anti-smoking campaigns</a> between 1997 and 2007 saved A$740 million on smoking-related illnesses like lung cancer.
Yet our breakdown of health spending in Western Australia shows just 1.7% is spent on preventive measures – called “public health spending”. Australia-wide the average percentage is even less, according to <a href="http://fare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Preventive-health-How-much-does-Australia-spend-and-is-it-enough_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">research</a> from La Trobe University and the Australian Preventative Partnership Centre.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264563/original/file-20190319-28468-c37pcs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264563/original/file-20190319-28468-c37pcs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Breakdown of health care spending in WA. <a class="source" href="https://bcec.edu.au/assets/2018/12/BCEC-To-Health-and-Happiness-Report.pdf" target="_blank">Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations from AIHW health expenditure database.</a>
Early medical attention is another way to reduce the need for hospitals. In analysing data from around Western Australia between 2009 and 2016, we generally found that increasing visits to general practitioners reduced the incidence of avoidable deaths (deaths that could have been avoided with better treatment or prevention).
People-centred approach
Limited prevention and early detection comes back to the way we fund health care. Australia’s health system is funded using a “<a href="https://beta.health.gov.au/resources/publications/australias-health-landscape-infographic" target="_blank">hospital-centred</a>” rather than “people-centred” approach.
This means hospitals are funded by the number of patients cared for and the type of procedures done. Hospital and GPs are funded separately. There is no incentive to cooperate and keep people out of hospitals.
A people-centred approach, on the other hand, would give funds based on patients’ health outcomes, rather than their particular treatments. GPs would be paid to manage patients, with the goal of keeping them out of hospital.
This system would particularly help people living in remote and rural regions, including Indigenous Australians, who are disadvantaged by the relative lack of resources being spent on local and preventive health.
The Canterbury model
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268298/original/file-20190409-2905-15ie8ak.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The Canterbury region in New Zealand. <a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Position_of_Canterbury_Region.png" target="_blank">English Wiki</a>
The best example of such a people-centred system is New Zealand’s <a href="https://www.cdhb.health.nz/about-us/key-projects-and-initiatives/international-report-encourages-health-systems-to-learn-from-canterbury-dhb/" target="_blank">Canterbury model</a> – named after the Canterbury region on New Zealand’s South Island (which includes Christchurch).
Instead of separate budgets for GPs and hospitals, Canterbury created a “one system, one budget” approach. This led to new programs that weren’t possible under the old system. An example is <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/quest-integrated-health-and-social-care" target="_blank">Healthpathways</a>, which brought together GPs and specialists to decide on treatement programs for individual patients.
In working to make hospitals the last resort, more time and resources have gone to GPs. There are now more 24-hour clinics, for example, making it easier to get treated by a local doctor when needed.
A <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/5/e010709" target="_blank">study of the Canterbury system</a> showed that between 2007 and 2014 the number of people being hospitalised declined from 6.59 to 5.83 per 1,000. While an 11% decline may not seem huge, it represents a significant financial saving, given the high cost of hospitalisation.
Canterbury shows what can be achieved by rethinking how health care funding works. Australia has the opportunity to reimagine its health care system in a similar way.
New hospitals get a lot of attention. Politicians can point to them as concrete evidence they’re doing something to help. But emphasising hospitals as the most important part of the health system comes at a cost, and will only get more so as the population ages.
It’s time to discuss alternatives. Putting more resources into prevention and people is the right medicine for our future health needs.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111084/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Steven Bond-Smith, Research Fellow, Bankwest-Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University
Alan Duncan, Director, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre and Bankwest Research Chair in Economic Policy, Curtin University
Astghik Mavisakalyan, Associate professor, Curtin University
Yashar Tarverdi, Research fellow, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-hospitals-will-not-cure-australias-ailing-health-care-system-theres-a-more-efficient-way-111084">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Healthcare

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Healthcare

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News