Health reform in Australia - a third way

Comments on Arthur Sinodinos “King Kong health plan threatens the PM”, 11/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/king-kong-health-plan-threatens-the-pm/story-e6frg6zo-1225839327575

Sinodinos describes the Rudd health reform plan as half pregnant and I say it is half cooked. They all characterise the same poor nature of the Rudd plan.

But I would disagree with Sinodinos on federal take over health responsibility. I think there is a case for doing it by taking the full responsibility of both funding and managing the services. That is one way to rebalance the vertical imbalance between the Commonwealth and the States. Taking some GST from the States is not necessarily unreasonable, as long as it is not too much and the States are completely relieved from health service responsibility.

The argument that the Commonwealth can’t run good health services is problematic and illogical. If 8 State bureaucratic health departments can run it, of course one national health department can also run it.

The Rudd plan is half cooked because it still has the States with more than 40% funding responsibility with little say, and it will not end the blame game and cost shifting.

Off course, there is another way to health reform that would involve a complete takeover of health by the States and increase funding from the Commonwealth to them, but specify how much minimum each State has to spend on health, base on advice of an independent analysis umpire. Then the responsibility of improving the hospitals is with the States. No blame game and no cost shifting.