Private Health Insurance Changes Starting April 2019 - Natural Therapies Will Lose Coverage

eckorock on 11/03/2019 - 12:44
Last edited 11/03/2019 - 13:14 by 1 other user

From my private health insurance provider:

Some Natural Therapies will lose coverage:

The government have conducted a thorough review of natural therapies and have decided Health Funds in Australia are no longer able to pay a benefit towards certain services.

Alexander technique, aromatherapy, Bowen therapy, Buteyko, Feldenkrais, herbalism, homeopathy, iridology, kinesiology, naturopathy, Pilates, reflexology, Rolfing, shiatsu, tai chi, and yoga are all being shown the door."

My question is, whilst I haven't ever participated in most of the above natural therapies, and many of them I am highly skeptical of (e.g. homeopathy), I don't understand why the government should have a say on the private insurance contract between a company and an individual?

If someone wants to use herbalism to treat some condition, and the health insurer is happy to cover this treatment, as long as the customer pays their premium, then what does it have to do with the government?

• 

  HighAndDry on 11/03/2019 - 12:46

  +3

  I don't understand why the government should have a say on the private insurance contract between a company and an individual?

  This is a good point and one that I would agree with on principle. However in this case, the answer is:

  Because the government subsidises private health insurance. I assume the regulations cover the requirements to qualify as a health fund that receives the subsidy.

• 

  eckorock on 11/03/2019 - 12:48

  Understood, however I take that to be a purely economic decision (i.e. the government spends money on private health, the net result is they save money… for example if they contribute $50 billion to private health, they save $80 billion in public health claims)

  • 

    HighAndDry on 11/03/2019 - 13:00

    +7

    Yes, but:

    for example if they contribute $50 billion to private health, they save $80 billion in public health claims

    This only works if the private health spending actually goes towards health spending with results. Natural therapies don't - and so you can spend $1 billion on natural therapies and it wouldn't decrease public health spending at all.

    Edit: E.g.: Govt subsidises money for vaccine, person doesn't get sick, govt saves money that would've gone towards treating the illness.

    But if Govt subsidises money for a natural remedy (that doesn't do anything), the govt will still have to pay for treatment of whatever illness the 'natural therapy' was supposed to treat.

    • 

      eckorock on 11/03/2019 - 13:05

      +3

      Good point bro, makes sense when you put it like that. Cheers

    • 

      TimOfEastBNE on 12/03/2019 - 12:52

      but they can still cover for Chiropractic and Osteopathy… :-(

• 

  CyberMurning on 11/03/2019 - 12:58

  why no provider covers happy ending?

  • 

    Clear on 11/03/2019 - 13:34

    -1

    That's what Tinder is for.

  • 

    Donaldhump on 11/03/2019 - 14:19

    they do, they put it under remedial massage

  • 

    Gandalf the Thrifty on 11/03/2019 - 17:39

    Rolfing sounds like something that should lead to that

• 

  theHMASfriendship on 11/03/2019 - 18:10

  +1

  *ROFLing

• 

  whooah1979 on 12/03/2019 - 06:07

  Natural Therapies

  This was bound to happen. Some of these so called providers are nothing more than charlatans with limited or no formal training rorting the system at the taxpayers expense.