Should We Continue Paying for The Healthcare of Non-Citizens from First World Countries (Reciprocal Health Care Agreements) ?

xdigger on 26/07/2022 - 11:27
Last edited 26/07/2022 - 11:30

This came up as I was chatting with my sister-in-law who is a pharmacist in one of the big pharmacy chains. She has a new patient from the UK who flies to Australia after the lockdown ended to get his regular anti-cancer meds, which apparently cost the Australian government (and taxpayers) tens of thousands every few months. This bloke isn't a dual Australian citizen or has ties to Australia, but apparently can get subsidised cancer meds for next to nothing despite not paying any taxes in Australia in his life. He says the reason is he makes these round trips down under a few times a year is because those anti-cancer meds are neither cheap nor funded under the NHS, which is the UK's version of Medicare (hence saving himself "quite a few quids" in his own words).

Now my sister-in-law doesn't mind her UK patient because she get's paid by Medicare regardless for dispensing those meds and he's a pleasant chatty chap to deal with who doesn't complain about the long wait times to order in his cancer meds, but it does struck me how we are essentially paying for non-citizens healthcare even though the UK is a developed country in its own right with its own free healthcare.

Apparently the British chap said the Australian healthcare system is much better funded than the NHS, which is also is why hundreds of UK doctors and nurses are migrating en masse to Australia for better pay and work-life balance every year (needs to be fact checked though). Not being from the UK myself I looked it up and we have Reciprocal Health Care Agreements for 11 countries, all of which are first world countries (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, The Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Norway, Slovenia, Malta and Italy).

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/reciprocal-health-care-…

This doesn't sound too bad but then I read the news now with rising inflation and costs of livings, everyday Australians are not being able to afford even a $30-40 routine GP visit these days. I wonder if we should stop paying for healthcare of non-Australian citizens/residents and spend those saved on Aussies instead? Or at least restrict it to cheap generics medications instead of specialised drugs costing thousands of dollars, as these non-Aussies doesn't have any ties to Australia or pay taxes here.
I can't find any data on how much Australia spends on the healthcare of non-citizens through such Reciprocal Health Care Agreements , but I suspect we are not getting too much back in the way of fellow Aussies utilising their poorer-funded foreign Medicare counterparts (I think Norway is perhaps the only country with an equally well-funded healthcare system like Australia.)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-21/medicare-rebates-not-…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-21/tas-gp-bulk-billing-d…

Yay or nay to continue spending millions (or perhaps hundreds of millions?) on non-taxpaying foreigners' healthcare while some Australians potentially miss out on essential healthcare/GP appointments? Thoughtful comments are always welcome.

Poll Options expired

  • 232
    Yeah (We should aid other first world countries, and cross-subsidise their healthcare expenditure)
  • 424
    Nah (We should put us Aussies first, or at least limit costs spent on foreign citizens under RHCAs)
Financial Medicare

Comments

      • Bren20 on 27/07/2022 - 11:58

        Would they fund dental for a tourist? I doubt it

        Visa's to the UK have an "immigration health surcharge", at a rate of $800/year, so you're definitely paying for your 'free' dental

      • trapper on 27/07/2022 - 16:06

        Also an ambulance ride is free in the UK :D

    • trapper on 27/07/2022 - 16:54

      It seems odd that a "reciprocal" agreement would have that imbalance.

      Always going to happen. The UK isn't going to change their healthcare system to start charging varying amounts depending on which country you are from, they don't even have the infrastructure to take payment at all in most cases.

    • trongy on 27/07/2022 - 20:16

      Another reason the loophole might disappear is if the UK starts funding the treatment. For all we know they have been waiting on further research to provide stronger evidence of it's effectiveness or holding out to negotiate a lower price with the drug company and it will be funded in the near future.

  • kanmen on 26/07/2022 - 12:12
    +6

    Seems like it's also a follow-through of a colonial system even. I think it would make so much more sense if this only applied in emergency situations ie. if someone was here on holiday and needed emergency care.

    • BigTed on 26/07/2022 - 13:26
      +2

      I like this option.
      Free emergency care is fair and realistic. Treatment for chronic conditions is taking liberties.

      • trapper on 27/07/2022 - 22:04
        +1

        It's nice to think that people with chronic conditions could take holidays too though…

    • Milkywayss on 28/07/2022 - 22:56

      Who decides when it’s an emergency though? Mild cough > pneumonia > sepsis > respiratory failure? I think it would make so much more sense to cost an $80 GP appointment and $6 oral antibiotics, than a $50,000 hospital admission needing ICU?

  • Eatslikeacat on 26/07/2022 - 12:14
    +22

    If you or your family are in a foreign country and need medical care then you'll be grateful that RHCAs exist otherwise you could face bankruptcy or denial of services. The issue is not that RHCAs should be abandoned but instead to identify rorting and to close those loopholes. If the NHS won't subsidise that medication for its own citizens or Australians then he certainly shouldn't be getting it under the PBS.

    In the UK you have to register with your local GP. There are limited temporary registrations and clinics can turn you away in those situations. A friend in the UK said that to get a doctor's note he has to travel all the way home instead of going to a local GP near work. In Australia we can take our Medicare card to any GP that we like. When it was suggested that GP registrations be introduced that was an election losing strategy and was quickly dropped. The former Liberal government then brought in voluntary registrations and 'incentives' which I believed was a trial by stealth. They could then claim that it was a great success and make it mandatory for people to register (I didn't believe their sales pitch that it was better for patients).

  • zoombie on 26/07/2022 - 12:40
    +16

    Without stats to back it up, I doubt this cost the budget very much as there's not too many people who have cancer and even a smaller number of people who would be aware of this. If you want to more money to put in Medicare or help out disadvantage Aussie, there's $11B in negative gearing, $6b in franking credit or the countless billions that the foreign companies take out of the country's resource sector without paying any taxes.
    https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/appea-members-pay-no-…

    • netjock on 26/07/2022 - 12:51
      -4

      there's $11B in negative gearing, $6b in franking credit

      It is the belief the money is actually there. You know the tax system is like an enclosed loop. You take out negative gearing, rents go up and it will just get taken out of rent payers. You take out franking credits and the share market adjusts share prices down due to lower yields and you take it out of people's super.

      Only way to get more tax revenue is to grow the economy and get 10% GST and income tax on that.

      • xdigger on 26/07/2022 - 13:06

        I agree with this, thus why I didn't address zoombie's straw man statement on increasing the Medicare budget (because everyone knows how easy that is. /s) and rather focused my post on making the Medicare budget more efficient instead with more legitimate allocations.

        Personally being a taxpayer myself I don't think we should be raising personal income taxes from everyday Australians to fund the widening budget deficit, but instead we should be taxing wealth measured by networth in the hundreds of millions, and taxing more of mining billionaires such as Gina Rinehart.

        If taxes are raised, young brilliant Aussies who would otherwise be taxed at the highest personal income bracket may move overseas and contribute to foreign economies. As it stands we are already a mining-dominant economy, and losing local born talents does not bode us well in a transition to a green energy/manufacturing economy.

        • netjock on 26/07/2022 - 15:06
          +3

          You know the country has gone to the dogs when the biggest industry is digging holes in the ground and moving the dirt, otherwise it is ploughing the dirty to grow agricultural products or flattening the dirt to build houses on it.

          • tonka on 29/07/2022 - 05:09

            @netjock: You mean the industries our circular economy is built on the back of? The essential industries tied to survival. The primary industries?

            • netjock on 29/07/2022 - 09:34

              @tonka:

              You mean the industries our circular economy is built on the back of?

              You seem to misunderstand what a circular economy means.

              We're basically built our economy on the same stuff they were producing in 1900.

      • greatlamp on 27/07/2022 - 13:43
        +3

        You take out negative gearing, rents go up

        Said by the people who benefit from the tax breaks, then repeated again and again.

        Why would rents go up? When did the price of rent ever have anything to do with the price of the house you are renting? It sounds intuitive until you look for evidence - rents go up with inflation, property prices grow much faster than inflation, and have been for decades.

        Rent is driven by wages growth. Property prices are driven by credit growth.

        If negative gearing is cancelled (won't ever happen), property prices will drop. Rents will increase as a % of the property value, the actual $ paid in rent won't move a dollar

        • netjock on 27/07/2022 - 13:49

          You must have no been reading or just decided to not listen to the experts because you're your own expert. Please read here

          It isn't rocket science. If I take away your tax cut you can afford less, to live the same you'll need to ask for a pay rise. Think of property investor getting $10k a year, you abolish negative gearing and they have $3k less you think they are going to swallow it? Or they going to ask for a withdrawal from bank of mum and dad? You can take away negative gearing but there wouldn't be some magic money tree dropping gold coins to replace that lost income. It just means people spend less or try to recover the missing money through rents.

          You need to stop tax evasion but also need to grow the economy. If you get tax evasion to 0 but find you still don't have tax money then it just means the economy isn't big enough to sustain country's spending habits.

          How many times have financial advice been: invest in your education (to make more money) and control your costs. Because there is only so much costs you can cut without increasing size of the pie.

          • greatlamp on 27/07/2022 - 13:53

            @netjock:

            to live the same you'll need to ask for a pay rise.

            So everyone will just get a pay rise when they want one? Don't people always want more money?

            Don't landlords always want the maximum amount of rent they can get? Will they want more maximum?

            The logic doesn't follow through.

            Not sure what I am supposed to get from the article you posted, it seems to support everything I have said. Landlords can't just desire more rent and get it, the people paying are people - not some unlimited resource that will always pay more

            • netjock on 27/07/2022 - 13:57

              @greatlamp:

              Not sure what I am supposed to get from the article you posted, it seems to support everything I have said.

              So Hockey says it will increase, Keating said at the time abolishing contributed

              During the period when negative gearing was abolished, Sydney and Perth had the lowest vacancy levels of the capital cities.

              You know how tight the rental market is right now right?

              But you know the journos at the ABC write it isn't a fact and wish it away makes it true.

              If you need ABC to force feed you then good luck to you.

              • greatlamp on 27/07/2022 - 14:00

                @netjock:

                If you need ABC to force feed you then good luck to you.

                You started off saying I don't listen to experts, then flip to saying I need the ABC to force feed me?

                Why do you insist that I have to be wrong, when the article you posted supports my point. Quote the articles conclusion. I am not going to.

                • netjock on 27/07/2022 - 14:17
                  +1

                  @greatlamp:

                  Quote the articles conclusion

                  The conclusion doesn't stand because it is invalidated with the following line:

                  During the period when negative gearing was abolished, Sydney and Perth had the lowest vacancy levels of the capital cities.

                  The rental market is tight, rents are going up right now. Prices will go up if you take away negative gearing. There is no slack in the market to keep rents down. Good luck if you don't understand supply & demand.

                  You started off saying I don't listen to experts, then flip to saying I need the ABC to force feed me?

                  The ABC isn't the experts. In the articles Hockey and Keating said it pushes up rents. ABC are just drawing their own conclusions.

    • ThithLord on 26/07/2022 - 13:36
      +2

      Yeeeep. Corporate welfare costs Australia a lot of $$

      • xdigger on 26/07/2022 - 13:40
        +5

        Yeah mate, something about digging dirt from the ground and becoming a billionaire off it doesn't sit too well with me. If there was going to be a huge environmental impact from mining, the least that could happen is the main bulk of the profits go to all Australians instead of politically-connected individuals like Gina Rinehart. But I digress.

  • netjock on 26/07/2022 - 12:41
    +1

    (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, The Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Norway, Slovenia, Malta and Italy).

    Go on holidays and get some of our money back will you?

    Of this list only UK and Italy has a significant population.

    He says the reason is he makes these round trips down under a few times a year is because those anti-cancer meds are neither cheap nor funded under the NHS

    You should watch An Idiots Abroad (TV show), I believe it was a UK favorite. This guy surely sounds like it. Flights would cost $5000 for 2 trips plus cost of living here etc. Might as well stay in the UK pay for your meds and go on all inclusive holidays in Spain a few weeks for a lot less. Cost of living in Spain (outside of Madrid and Barcelona) is a lot cheaper than in Australia too that is why so many Brits retire there.

    • xdigger on 26/07/2022 - 12:47
      +1

      Haha I wish I could travel but I'm still paying off my HECS debt! I don't think a UK round trip costs that much unless one flies business class? Perhaps $2000 for a round economy trip but we are talking about medications costing tens of thousands every few months. Fun fact, I was also told by my pharmacist sister-in-law that those new covid medications cost the government more than $1000 per script.

      • netjock on 26/07/2022 - 12:53
        +1

        Business class is more than $5k regular price.

        You said he travels down a couple of times a year. Economy is $2k minimum so $5k for twice a year.

        Haha I wish I could travel but I'm still paying off my HECS debt!

        Hurry up. Then get yourself a travel debt. Don't worry that will be offset by the benefits of health tourism you are engaging in.

        • LePhasme on 26/07/2022 - 15:01

          A round trip to Europe in economy can be found around 1200$ usually (maybe not right now with the very high demand), sometimes cheaper, lowest I found was about 900$ (for a normal flight not even those stupid 35h/3+ stops flight).

    • trapper on 27/07/2022 - 16:36
      +1

      Also OP did say every few months, so it's probably more more like four trips a year.

  • Stewardo on 26/07/2022 - 12:42
    +13

    Does OP realise that a lot of Australians live in UK and access the NHS.

    • netjock on 26/07/2022 - 12:54

      You know we're the greatest country in the world and everyone wants to live here. People just need to look on the airport arrival boards and who come out of the exit gates to tell you it isn't everyone. Just some.

      • AustriaBargain on 26/07/2022 - 13:24

        Brits love the idea of living in Australia, but they also live the idea of living anywhere warm. Very common trope to aspire to move somewhere warm like Spain.

        • netjock on 26/07/2022 - 14:39
          -2

          Spain is like 2 hrs flight time. Most Brits want to live here but once they are here it is very different to reality.

    • Bren20 on 27/07/2022 - 12:02
      +1

      And they pay for it

      https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application/how-mu…

      • trapper on 27/07/2022 - 16:00

        That is for a working visa, we also charge a similar amount to any UK citizens wanting a working visa here.

        • Bren20 on 27/07/2022 - 16:26
          +1

          who are the aussies living in the UK that aren't on a working visa?

          • trapper on 27/07/2022 - 16:31

            @Bren20: who are the brits living in Australia that aren't on a working visa?

            • Bren20 on 27/07/2022 - 18:29

              @trapper: Yeah, not sure what point I was trying to make there

              But the bloke coming over on a tourist visa definitely isn't paying any healthcare surcharge

            • lonewolf on 28/07/2022 - 11:44

              @trapper: i think its in reference to the guy flying over on a tourist visa and buying up meds subsidised by tax payers.

  • vinnychase on 26/07/2022 - 13:12
    +1

    If one these countries lets say has free dental care for its citizens. Would we be able to access it?

    • AustriaBargain on 26/07/2022 - 13:26
      +2

      When a public dentist opens in the UK people will literally line up for kilometres to join the waiting list. Their dental situation is almost as fracked as ours. 20 years ago it was anyway, might have changes since then actually.

    • trapper on 27/07/2022 - 16:03

      All 'necessary' and emergency dental treatment is theoretically free in the UK. (Could be a long wait for anything non-urgent)

      Anything cosmetic or elective you may need to pay for.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/07/2022 - 13:14
    +1

    only if we have a mutual agreement in which if Australians in there respective countries get 'free' treatment

    i know we have such agreements with Canada, Uk, France etc

    otherwise they should have insurances like we have to in the USA

  • AustriaBargain on 26/07/2022 - 13:22

    Apparently there's more Australians in their 20s living in London than in Sydney, or something like that, can never remember factoids properly. Maybe we are getting the better end of the deal there.

    • xdigger on 26/07/2022 - 13:43
      +1

      Even if factual, I think you'll find that the older population utilises the healthcare system much more than younger folks.

  • try2bhelpful on 26/07/2022 - 14:38
    +2

    Medical tourism is a thing. However, there are a lot of costs associated with travelling, staying, etc that would need to be brought into the equation. Then you need to add in the stresses associated with someone who has a serious illness travelling regularly. Then they would need the costs of repatriating if they get even sicker whilst they are over here. I can’t see them getting travel insurance.

    Certainly you will find Australians who will travel to countries to get their teeth done, plastic surgery, etc. It makes it cheaper for us but it might mean a local person might not get access to the services. We also attract medical personnel from overseas.

    Overwhelmingly the reciprocal agreements mean that travellers have medical care. It means if I’m in France, and start feeling off, I might head to Belgium.

    Australia is the arse end of the world. Europe to Australia is a 24 hour flight; including having to do stop overs. I’m sure people do this but there are probably better options. I don’t think we are being invaded by hordes of sick POMs.

    • Yola on 27/07/2022 - 17:03

      A couple of years ago my husband and I traveled to several countries in Europe and I was very conscious of moving to one of the ones on the list if one of us was to become ill.

    • MrThing on 27/07/2022 - 18:13

      Literally no one comes to Aus for medical tourism.

      And as you rightly say plenty of people travel to asia or the middle east for medicsl procedures - but its not on that countrys public healthcare dollar, they pay for it

      Also as far as i am aware most if not all general travel insurance policies specifically exclude any cover for people who travel and get medical procedures done

  • try2bhelpful on 26/07/2022 - 14:40
    +1

    RHCA countries

    Read the agreement conditions for the RHCA country you are travelling to, from the list below:
    Belgium
    Finland
    Italy
    Malta
    the Netherlands
    New Zealand
    Norway
    the Republic of Ireland
    Slovenia
    Sweden
    the United Kingdom.

  • LePhasme on 26/07/2022 - 15:12
    +2

    Yes we should because it's really a specific case, the total number of people that can benefit from it is going to be minimal, and in total it's not even a drop in the bucket.
    If that guy has actually the means to pay for his treatment in the UK what he does is a bit shit but not gonna have any kind of measurable impact on medicare budget.
    It's also to keep the system simple, everyone has the same rights so that they don't have to handle exceptions in the system to check what you're covered for, if you start to make exceptions you're gonna lose the small savings you make just in meetings between the NHS/Medicare to agree on what is covered, the update/maintenance of IT systems to handle it and the training of staff etc…

  • vikvance on 26/07/2022 - 16:49
    +1

    Even if it is "hundreds of millions" and not just "millions" of dollars, it is tiny compared to the approx. $600,000 million (i.e. $600 billion) of annual tax revenue collected by Australia.

    Personally, I would prefer significantly strengthened links with Britain, to the point where Aussies could go & live & work in Britain whenever they wanted, similar to New Zealand.

    Australia is a backwater at the end of the world. I would leave immediately for the UK, if I had the right to live & work there.

    • Yola on 27/07/2022 - 17:21

      My husband and I stayed with some friends living there over 30 years ago and talked about the quality of life there, They lived 40 minutes train trip from the CBD (St Albans) yet the price for their modest 2 up and 2 down terrace was high compared to Melbourne, and wages of the IT professional friend low. Things are worse now IMO. The friends returned to live in Australia a few years later.

  • jm7 on 26/07/2022 - 16:53
    +1

    Australians don't have full access to NHS. I know an Australian citizen living in the UK that had to contribute to their IVF treatment. If she was a UK citizen it would have been free.

    • morse on 27/07/2022 - 02:30
      -1

      Yes and I believe the same in Australia. I think it’s only for essential and unplanned care.

    • trapper on 27/07/2022 - 15:51

      Reciprocal health care is a mixture of different rules for different countries.

      But trust me you will get a lot more healthcare for free as an Australian in the UK, than a UK citizen will get here in Australia. (Or even an Australian citizen here in Australia in almost all cases lol)

    • [Deactivated] on 28/07/2022 - 07:16

      that's understandable, IVF isn't urgent medical care / life threatening, or even for QoL, like getting your teeth fixed might be (some people just get unlucky genetics, crowded mouth)

      i am surprised that the NHS covers IVF in full for UK citizens, doubly so considering that they don't even subsidise this man's cancer medication.

  • 4ksandknives on 26/07/2022 - 17:43

    Food for thought, Canada's public health care system, similar to UK and Australia's NHS and Medicare (it's called this well in Canada) is on the brink of collapse as hospitals are overwhelmed and there have been a never of patient dying from preventable issues as a result of the numbers.

    During normal times, it was bursting at the seems, but with covid related hospitalisations and presentations on top of the normal situation, it's to the point where Canada will have review the funding for it's system to provide for the community.

    Australia has the benefit of being semi privatised. Add to this more restrict border and entry requirements, it seems Australia is more protected… For now.

    • try2bhelpful on 26/07/2022 - 18:33
      +5

      Actually Canada has the, additional, problem of Americans crossing the border. We should move our private money into our public health system.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/07/2022 - 07:24

        that won't solve anything, the bean counters will just find another way to make money disappear in exorbitant medical fees and then everyone will be stuck on several year long waiting lists for stuff that may not kill them but is severely impacting their lives.

        throwing money at things like healthcare never seems to work because of chronic mismanagement at all levels. private works because people are held to a standard, poor performers don't last long. one of the royal hobart hospitals problems is that a lot of the personnel just shouldn't be there, they are not up to date with their training, they are lazy (rather sit around chatting than doing their jobs) and they are secure in their positions, because it's not private. Tasmanian healthcare is pretty dogshit, i don't think its that bad on the mainland, but here you really see the flaws of a public system, most of our good doctors move to the mainland because they can get better pay there and nicer working conditions.

  • Benoffie on 26/07/2022 - 20:00
    +1

    Third option - like for like.

    Same services, same drugs and same limits.

    Example. $1 on Brit here = $1 on Aussie in UK

  • SlavOz on 27/07/2022 - 00:22
    -3

    It is my opinion that not a single dollar should go towards foreign funding until every Australian is taken care of.

    This should be in our constitution and it should ve added to the charter of human rights. A nation has a responsibility to its own people, first and foremost. I don't care how bad Putin is or how much oil the Sheiks are throwing at us.

    • Herbse on 27/07/2022 - 15:49

      There are many situations where providing help to foreign countries is done to assure security of our own.

      Eg. Providing military aid to war torn countries against rebels can prevent a mass war migration leading to an influx of refugees which we are obligated to help

      Providing medical aid to neighbouring countries can help prevent the spread of diseases ending up on our shores. Eg providing countries with vaccines helps reduce the chances of a mass outbreak here

      There are many other situations that are similar to the above where if we invest in assistance, it helps reduce or eliminate the likely of that countries issues becoming ours.

      • SlavOz on 27/07/2022 - 16:36

        We don't have to worry about any of those things as they are the products of immigration. Like I said, if we just focus on our own people, we shouldn't worry about bringing new people in.

        • Herbse on 27/07/2022 - 17:30

          Visitors to the country and other countries are not migration.

          For example, we currently have a threat of hand foot and mouth disease epidemic in Indonesia which could destroy our meat industry. Causing billions in dollars of damage to the economy.

          This disease can be carried unknowingly by visitors from Indonesia and Australians travelling back.

          The government is helping Indonesia financially, along with other measures, to help reduce the chances or severity of that happening

          This is one of many examples where focusing on foreign countries is in our best interest.

          • Willy Beamish on 28/07/2022 - 13:16

            @Herbse: You're missing the blaringly obvious solution to that problem that doesn't include providing boatloads of money to another country.

            • Herbse on 28/07/2022 - 13:19

              @Willy Beamish: Seal the country off from all travel in and out by anyone and everyone?

  • morse on 27/07/2022 - 02:27
    +1

    I’m generally for reciprocal agreements, (though overall we may be paying more). I like the idea that we look after people in need and that in return they’ll look after our people.

    I think the intent is only for essential emergency/unplanned care. So say for example someone has major trauma from a car accident here and they are from NZ. They’ll have their emergency care and life saving surgery etc here, then once they are stable and safe to travel they’ll be sent back to NZ for their rehabilitation.

    I do believe it varies for each country and what we offer people from the UK is quite generous i.e. it only needs to be ‘necessary’ not emergency/unplanned, and includes some medications. I wonder what cancer meds old mate can’t receive in the UK affordably. I thought the NHS was pretty good for that kind of thing.

    • MrFrugalSpend on 28/07/2022 - 08:10
      +1

      This is probably because the UK is also generous in what it offers Australians in UK.
      The mutual benefit would be negotiated so each country spends a similar amount on each other's citizens, meaning it isn't costing Australian taxpayers.

      Poll is invalid - it is mis-leading answers.
      This is about reciprocal health agreements. We aren't subsidising other's, we receive a benefit overseas also.
      The net amount may be paid for or even in our favour with Australians overseas.

  • MontyMacaw on 27/07/2022 - 08:11

    The guy has cancer FFS! Most people would go to any lengths in that situation. Often chasing quack solutions that just rip them off. You’re overthinking it. Have some compassion.

  • ganchan on 27/07/2022 - 08:42
    +2

    RECIPROCAL agreement, right?
    I'm sure there are medicines and other health care not funded properly in Australia that forces people to go overseas in the same way as this cancer patient you've mentioned.
    Again, it's a RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT.

    • MrFrugalSpend on 28/07/2022 - 08:08

      Exactly - I think OP is missing the point.
      I don't know the details, but I wouldn't be surprised if under the reciprocal agreements, countries are keeping track of how much is spent on other country's citizens and may even send their home country the bill for the difference in a reconciliation of accounts.
      It's an agreement with their home country for funding, not necessary Australian taxpayers.

      Australians get something out of it abroad also. The net amount would be negligible.

  • Joey2scoops on 27/07/2022 - 09:03
    +1

    Maybe I'm missing something here but if the UK dude is not a citizen or not a permanent resident then he's not accessing Medicare in the UK or Australia. What he is doing is paying the potentially subsidised retail price
    for that prescription in Australia. Different issue. It's been common practice all over the world, AFAIK, for people to buy medication in other countries. Very common in the US for example. So, that being the case, the question should be do we have one price for legal residents and another for non-permanent residents. And what about hospital treatment? Probably much cheaper here, even at full whack, than it would be in plenty of other countries.

    • greatlamp on 27/07/2022 - 14:06
      +2

      No it's reciprocal medicare.

      He accesses our healthcare system as if he was a citizen, and you can fly to the UK and do the same if you like.

      So there is a drug that is covered in Australia and not in the UK. An anomaly. Big deal.

      Without reciprocal healthcare we would each be paying for private health insurance for subpar cover

  • srhardy on 27/07/2022 - 09:12
    +4

    Ill go back and read all the comments but if you want REFORM, well I can say with 100% honesty and first hand experience the NDIS now already costs what medicare costs and its a gigantic WOFT&M. Its scammed at every level and overpays and seriously underdelivers! I know its purpose but like all government inititives, its ripe with fraud on such a massive scale with no way to stop it as its currently designed!

    Look at UBER, you order a service from your phone, you see your balance and you provide feedback and can see the feedback of the provider. NDIS has NONE of this!

    • RefusdClassification on 27/07/2022 - 14:34
      +3

      Yes, NDIS is terribly wasteful. Things that should cost $400 end up costing the government $2,000. It should just be replaced with a monthly check for people who qualify as disable. That way, they decide how the money is spent instead of bureaucrats who rort the system.

      • Yola on 27/07/2022 - 17:28
        +2

        I understand similar waste occurs with services supporting the elderly to stay in their own home, which I agree with. Part of the issue is that as soon as government funds are involved accountability and documentation increases but there is also significant rorting by providers.

  • RMBC on 27/07/2022 - 09:23
    +1

    There are always going to be scumbags who rort systems, or utilise them in ways that far exceed the intent. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water though

    It would be lovely if people always acted with honesty and integrity, but that will never happen. There are more citizens who benefit from such systems to make it worthwhile, than people who rort it. Perhaps there should be individual review systems in place which get triggered for such examples, but then the difficulty becomes where does it stop and who makes those decisions?

    It's clearly an imperfect system, but surely as a society we have much bigger issues to deal with, and unfortunately there will always be waste in anything to do with government; I think this is at the less egregious end of the scale

  • sarahlump on 27/07/2022 - 10:30

    also, the govt doesnt buy them for what americans or british people pay. we form agreements with the companies to get them for significantly cheaper. Perhaps go after big pharma.

    • greatlamp on 27/07/2022 - 23:41

      It's only the USA that pays extortion prices for drugs, and we don't have a reciprocal agreement with them.

      Drugs are actually cheaper under the UK NHS in many cases.

      OPs poorly researched scare campaign to cancel reciprocal healthcare agreements would actually hurt us more. A lot of Australians travel overseas, being one of the wealthiest countries in the list

  • Ponsonby on 27/07/2022 - 10:30
    +1

    The key word is RECIPROCAL

  • Crimzic on 27/07/2022 - 10:48
    +3

    It was kind of great when my wife could bring our 4 months old daughter to an Emergency room in Sweden without worrying about the bill (she still got travel insurance anyway). It's reciprocal as commenters above mentioned, so Australians are not only giving but also getting medical services back.

  • Waltervp on 27/07/2022 - 10:50
    +4

    There is a difference between exploiting and sharing I think. I have cystic fibrosis and can not get cover for CF related med.expenses under my travel insurance but rely on reciprocal healthcare rights when I travel. Never needed it yet, but it would be awful to travel to the other side of the world and get stuck with a 3 week hospitalisation at my cost on my pension. Without reciprocal healthcare I could not risk travel. With that in mind I haven't thought about going overseas to get $$ treatments available there which is not available here…. maybe that is abuse and that can be regulated.

  • gromit on 27/07/2022 - 12:06
    +1

    The reality is in the overall scheme of things this is a minor expense and the benefits to Australians travelling in other countries easily outweighs the costs of the exploits. Though such exploits probably need to be monitored closely.

  • Poor Ass on 27/07/2022 - 12:10
    +2

    If the gov dumped the whole submarine deal there would enough free meds for decades

    • [Deactivated] on 28/07/2022 - 09:55
      +1

      How they gon' go under da sea?

      • Poor Ass on 28/07/2022 - 09:56
        +1

        Down where it's wetter
        Take it from me

  • 91rs on 27/07/2022 - 12:23
    +2

    Maybe the question is more about how far would you go or what "loopholes" would you take advantage of to continue to live if the only options in your local country were financially not viable or just not offered? Not like he's going all Walter White to fund his treatment so this is doing less harm over all.

    I think the attempt to close out some of these unique situations with the goal of redistributing the funding to help locals is fine, however with everything government related the truth and original ideas its sold on never happens.
    Example in NSW is speed camera revenue from tickets in school zones was meant to fund the zones, flashing lights, the diamond teeth things on the roads, fences etc to make the students safer, it never happened as it was such a cash cow.

    I wouldn't trust the government to close the loophole, redistribute the funds somewhere that benefits locals enough over someone who needs and uses the cancer drugs.

    I have a bigger issue with shonky Dr's who write up scripts for all sorts of PBS drugs that are then filled at dodgy pharmacies (who get the medicare money), the patient then head back overseas (dual nationality or has medicare card obviously) and then sells those drugs they don't need locally and makes a fortune.
    Returns and does it again.

    Plenty of other ways that others are robbing Australia and its generosity than old mate with his cancer meds.

  • xylarr on 27/07/2022 - 12:40
    +1

    I think this is a case of don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good".

    I think what ever system you have, there are always going to be outliers or loopholes. But does that justify tearing up the reciprocal agreements that help so many Australians? The big thing these agreements do is give you access to healthcare if you are travelling - you don't need onerous insurance.

    I'm willing to look at the bigger picture and let this one slide.

  • Deals For Days on 27/07/2022 - 13:34
    +4

    There are far better places for the govt to be saving money e.g. not handing out millions to already profitable corporations during Covid (thanks Liberal govt!).

    With regards to healthcare, as others have said it’s reciprocal, and the benefits to letting Australians get care overseas with the least hassle possible greatly outweighs the negatives.

    Other than that, I think many people believe healthcare is a human right, so frankly I don’t personally object to the example you gave as if that were me I would want access to these drugs also.

    You haven’t sighted any figures at all saying Australia pays more than we get from others, so I think this is much ado about nothing.

  • Miss B on 27/07/2022 - 13:35

    Perhaps a better question is, why aren't these subsidised in a first world country (I don't consider the US to be a first world country)? If these are necessary treatments, the NHS should be covering them. Are they not the recommended treatment? If not, why is Australia subsidising them?

  • Vote for Pedro on 27/07/2022 - 13:36
    +1

    Poll options even more loaded than ones I’ve done. I bow to you my master

  • RefusdClassification on 27/07/2022 - 14:31

    Thank you for bringing the issue up. Non-citizens should only be eligible for low priced out of patent medications (these are typically in the $10 to $20 range). Australia is heavily in debt. We should not be bailing out other countries and their citizens. Australian money should be spent on Australian citizens (nativism as opposed to globalism).

  • FlyingMiffy on 27/07/2022 - 14:45
    +2

    The reciprocal agreements are to assist people who work or are traveling overseas. It is not to facilitate "medical holidays" that exploit the rules for individual gain. The PBS is finite.

  • Dalton on 27/07/2022 - 15:51

    The agreement doesn't cover everything. Dialysis, for example, is not covered.

    We offer healthcare to certain groups because they come here and spend cash. Sometimes people even come here and work, which is flipping great because we didn't pay for their birth or their schooling. They might even go home again before we pay their pension, you beauty.

    • ldt on 29/07/2022 - 17:23

      I received dialysis for free when I first arrived here as a UK citizen.

      • Dalton on 29/07/2022 - 17:32

        Was that a pre-existing condition, or did your kidneys fail while you were here?

        • ldt on 29/07/2022 - 17:33

          I had an emergency after I got here.

          • Dalton on 29/07/2022 - 17:34

            @ldt: Okay, thanks. (That must have been scary).

            • ldt on 29/07/2022 - 17:37

              @Dalton: It was, but the dialysis was one of the least scary things about it!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join