Transprent health funding commit both layers of government

Comments on Adam Cresswell “Shortcomings aplenty in tempting proposal”, 12/02/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/shortcomings-aplenty-in-tempting-proposal/story-e6frg6zo-1226004693697
It is so misleading to talk about 50-50 funding when it is only applied to growth funding instead of the total funding.

I think the proposed single national pool of health fund may not be accepted by the states - they are unlikely to give up the control of their money.

An acceptable model is for the federal money to be operating in the single pool model that Gillard has proposed and leave the states' money to the states to manage their own money and adopt the national reporting and efficient funding at least for the federal funding part.

The federal government can, together with the states, implement the reforms of transparency and efficiency funding.

It can also demand the states their 50% must exclude their bureaucratic health administration costs.
 
This fixed funding model commit both layers of government in terms of funding. It also saves the difficult negotiations between the two layers on funding in the absence of a transparent model.
 
The federal government needs to make sure that it will not reduce its share of contribution to health funding.